From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Oct 1 09:52:54 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:52:54 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org><0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> I think this is a good summary - at least for insiders. I wonder whether we shouldn't be a bit more specific on how the interrelation between the OCs works. "A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed." Some examples may be helpful: ICANN board membership, cross-membership between OCs, cross-community working groups... Just an idea. Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Lynn St.Amour Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:26 PM To: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs Hi, sending again, as I did not see this come through on our list. -------------- Please find attached the suggested text for action item: 10) St. Amour, Gerich, and Fältström to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. Our task was to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. In doing so, we recognized that the 3 OC model had not really been elaborated on in the ICG's proposal and as that was the basic underpinning, we tried to cover both. Our current thinking is that in Part 0 a new section after paragraph 01 could be useful. Basically, a high level model introduction (although Part 0 is evolving quite significantly and there may be a better place). The text below is based on RFC 2860, SAC-067, and the Internet Organizations (I*) Shared Resource document at https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/is-internetresources-201308-en.pdf . Note: the text below would need to incorporate appropriate references. There has been a significant level of discussion on this amongst the group members. Elise has some concerns and we agreed to highlight that fact to the ICG as part of our review. I will leave it to Elise to share those concerns if they have still not been adequately addressed.. The Internet’s incredible growth and success has been due in large part to its shared global ownership, use of open standards, and freely accessible processes for technology and policy development. The smooth operation of the Internet depends upon a global, collaborative and community-driven approach to managing key shared resources. Some of the most important shared resources are Internet Protocol addresses, Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters. Taken together these are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Function. The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative coordinating services, under policy direction from 3 Operating Communities (OCs), for many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate. The three “operational communities” (OCs) are: the domain names community (organized around ICANN’s supporting organizations and advisory committees); the number resources community (organized around the regional address registries or RIRs); and the protocol parameters community (organized around the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)). The identifiers are: 1) Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone; 2) Internet Numbers Registry; 3) Protocol Parameter Registry, including the “Address and Routing Parameter Area” (.ARPA) TLD; 4) INTernational treaty organizations (.INT) top-level domain. The services above are performed under a number of independent operational agreements between the Operating Communities (OC) and ICANN (as the current IANA Functions Operator), as well as under a contract between ICANN and the USG Department of Commerce given their stewardship role over these functions. It is important to note that the Policy and many of the Oversight responsibilities for these tasks lie with the operational communities and not the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), hence they do not form part of the IFO's responsibilities. -- Policies are defined as "the agreed upon rules developed through community-based processes by which shared Internet resources are managed". -- Oversight here is defined as "to ensure policies and implementation are aligned and promote the coherent long-term development and use of shared Internet resources." -- Implementation of such shared Internet resources (i.e. IANA Functions) should be "in a neutral and responsible manner, guided by the relevant policy and oversight processes". Community specific (and community defined) global policy development and oversight processes exist in the OCs as part of their responsibilities for ensuring the continued smooth operation of the global Internet. A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed. This transition proposal was developed by the 3 OCs, and existing coordination mechanisms were used to ensure its overall coherence. Coordination across the OCs is clearly an essential component to the Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral part of the OCs operating and policy development processes. In the specific case of the IANA Functions, each community has clearly restated their ongoing commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run, is decentralized. This could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere. We look forward to the ICG's comments. Best, Lynn, Patrik, Elise _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Oct 1 09:55:02 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:55:02 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <560C4D46.3030307@oracle.com> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org><0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org><0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <560C4D46.3030307@oracle.com> Message-ID: <779CB9D1F9714A06BF60761E33EAE657@WUKPC> Oh, Joe covered already what I was just sending... I agree. Wolf-Ulrich From: joseph alhadeff Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:59 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs Lynn: The section below, the first sentence quoted in particular, is what deals with existing Collaboration, the following paragraph deals with promises of future collaboration: A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed. This transition proposal was developed by the 3 OCs, and existing coordination mechanisms were used to ensure its overall coherence. Coordination across the OCs is clearly an essential component to the Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral part of the OCs operating and policy development processes. In the specific case of the IANA Functions, each community has clearly restated their ongoing commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run, is decentralized. Might it be possible to provide some examples of the collaboration across the communities that has occured to illustrate the "as needed"? The ability to demonstrate different mechanisms of collaboration to address different contexts would help clarify why a top-down defined method of collaboration would not be appropriate, for those not familiar with the history of OC collaboration... Joe On 9/30/2015 4:26 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Hi, sending again, as I did not see this come through on our list. -------------- Please find attached the suggested text for action item: 10) St. Amour, Gerich, and Fältström to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. Our task was to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. In doing so, we recognized that the 3 OC model had not really been elaborated on in the ICG's proposal and as that was the basic underpinning, we tried to cover both. Our current thinking is that in Part 0 a new section after paragraph 01 could be useful. Basically, a high level model introduction (although Part 0 is evolving quite significantly and there may be a better place). The text below is based on RFC 2860, SAC-067, and the Internet Organizations (I*) Shared Resource document at https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/is-internetresources-201308-en.pdf . Note: the text below would need to incorporate appropriate references. There has been a significant level of discussion on this amongst the group members. Elise has some concerns and we agreed to highlight that fact to the ICG as part of our review. I will leave it to Elise to share those concerns if they have still not been adequately addressed.. The Internet’s incredible growth and success has been due in large part to its shared global ownership, use of open standards, and freely accessible processes for technology and policy development. The smooth operation of the Internet depends upon a global, collaborative and community-driven approach to managing key shared resources. Some of the most important shared resources are Internet Protocol addresses, Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters. Taken together these are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Function. The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative coordinating services, under policy direction from 3 Operating Communities (OCs), for many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate. The three “operational communities” (OCs) are: the domain names community (organized around ICANN’s supporting organizations and advisory committees); the number resources community (organized around the regional address registries or RIRs); and the protocol parameters community (organized around the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)). The identifiers are: 1) Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone; 2) Internet Numbers Registry; 3) Protocol Parameter Registry, including the “Address and Routing Parameter Area” (.ARPA) TLD; 4) INTernational treaty organizations (.INT) top-level domain. The services above are performed under a number of independent operational agreements between the Operating Communities (OC) and ICANN (as the current IANA Functions Operator), as well as under a contract between ICANN and the USG Department of Commerce given their stewardship role over these functions. It is important to note that the Policy and many of the Oversight responsibilities for these tasks lie with the operational communities and not the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), hence they do not form part of the IFO's responsibilities. -- Policies are defined as "the agreed upon rules developed through community-based processes by which shared Internet resources are managed". -- Oversight here is defined as "to ensure policies and implementation are aligned and promote the coherent long-term development and use of shared Internet resources." -- Implementation of such shared Internet resources (i.e. IANA Functions) should be "in a neutral and responsible manner, guided by the relevant policy and oversight processes". Community specific (and community defined) global policy development and oversight processes exist in the OCs as part of their responsibilities for ensuring the continued smooth operation of the global Internet. A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed. This transition proposal was developed by the 3 OCs, and existing coordination mechanisms were used to ensure its overall coherence. Coordination across the OCs is clearly an essential component to the Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral part of the OCs operating and policy development processes. In the specific case of the IANA Functions, each community has clearly restated their ongoing commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run, is decentralized. This could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere. We look forward to the ICG's comments. Best, Lynn, Patrik, Elise _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu Oct 1 12:59:14 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:59:14 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org><0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> Message-ID: Thank you Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, we will wait for a few more comments to come in and then revise appropriately. Lynn On Oct 1, 2015, at 5:52 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > I think this is a good summary - at least for insiders. I wonder whether we shouldn't be a bit more specific on how the interrelation between the OCs works. "A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed." Some examples may be helpful: ICANN board membership, cross-membership between OCs, cross-community working groups... > > Just an idea. > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:26 PM > To: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs > > Hi, > > sending again, as I did not see this come through on our list. > > -------------- > > Please find attached the suggested text for action item: > > 10) St. Amour, Gerich, and Fältström to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. > > Our task was to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. In doing so, we recognized that the 3 OC model had not really been elaborated on in the ICG's proposal and as that was the basic underpinning, we tried to cover both. > > Our current thinking is that in Part 0 a new section after paragraph 01 could be useful. Basically, a high level model introduction (although Part 0 is evolving quite significantly and there may be a better place). > > The text below is based on RFC 2860, SAC-067, and the Internet Organizations (I*) Shared Resource document at https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/is-internetresources-201308-en.pdf . Note: the text below would need to incorporate appropriate references. > > There has been a significant level of discussion on this amongst the group members. Elise has some concerns and we agreed to highlight that fact to the ICG as part of our review. I will leave it to Elise to share those concerns if they have still not been adequately addressed.. > > > > The Internet’s incredible growth and success has been due in large part to its shared global ownership, use of open standards, and freely accessible processes for technology and policy development. The smooth operation of the Internet depends upon a global, collaborative and community-driven approach to managing key shared resources. > > Some of the most important shared resources are Internet Protocol addresses, Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters. Taken together these are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Function. > > The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative coordinating services, under policy direction from 3 Operating Communities (OCs), for many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate. The three “operational communities” (OCs) are: the domain names community (organized around ICANN’s supporting organizations and advisory committees); the number resources community (organized around the regional address registries or RIRs); and the protocol parameters community (organized around the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)). > > The identifiers are: > > 1) Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone; > 2) Internet Numbers Registry; > 3) Protocol Parameter Registry, including the “Address and Routing Parameter Area” (.ARPA) TLD; > 4) INTernational treaty organizations (.INT) top-level domain. > > The services above are performed under a number of independent operational agreements between the Operating Communities (OC) and ICANN (as the current IANA Functions Operator), as well as under a contract between ICANN and the USG Department of Commerce given their stewardship role over these functions. > > It is important to note that the Policy and many of the Oversight responsibilities for these tasks lie with the operational communities and not the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), hence they do not form part of the IFO's responsibilities. > > -- Policies are defined as "the agreed upon rules developed through community-based processes by which shared Internet resources are managed". > -- Oversight here is defined as "to ensure policies and implementation are aligned and promote the coherent long-term development and use of shared Internet resources." > -- Implementation of such shared Internet resources (i.e. IANA Functions) should be "in a neutral and responsible manner, guided by the relevant policy and oversight processes". > > Community specific (and community defined) global policy development and oversight processes exist in the OCs as part of their responsibilities for ensuring the continued smooth operation of the global Internet. A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed. This transition proposal was developed by the 3 OCs, and existing coordination mechanisms were used to ensure its overall coherence. > > Coordination across the OCs is clearly an essential component to the Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral part of the OCs operating and policy development processes. In the specific case of the IANA Functions, each community has clearly restated their ongoing commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run, is decentralized. > > > > This could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere. We look forward to the ICG's comments. > > Best, > Lynn, Patrik, Elise > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Fri Oct 2 15:17:47 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:17:47 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org><0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> Message-ID: I would agree with Wolf-U that you'd need a lot more specifics in the paragraph about the web of relationships, I would go further and say that most of the preceding paragraphs are not needed, in that they describe the OCs themselves rather than the cooperative mechanisms among them. I don't think we need to do that. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > WUKnoben > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 5:53 AM > To: Lynn St.Amour ; IANA Stewardship Transition > Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs > > I think this is a good summary - at least for insiders. I wonder whether we > shouldn't be a bit more specific on how the interrelation between the OCs > works. "A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the > relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed." Some examples may be > helpful: ICANN board membership, cross-membership between OCs, cross- > community working groups... > > Just an idea. > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > From: Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:26 PM > To: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs > > Hi, > > sending again, as I did not see this come through on our list. > > -------------- > > Please find attached the suggested text for action item: > > 10) St. Amour, Gerich, and Fältström to summarize how collaboration works > today between the OCs. > > Our task was to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. > In doing so, we recognized that the 3 OC model had not really been elaborated > on in the ICG's proposal and as that was the basic underpinning, we tried to > cover both. > > Our current thinking is that in Part 0 a new section after paragraph 01 could > be useful. Basically, a high level model introduction (although Part > 0 is evolving quite significantly and there may be a better place). > > The text below is based on RFC 2860, SAC-067, and the Internet Organizations > (I*) Shared Resource document at > https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/is-internetresources- > 201308-en.pdf > . Note: the text below would need to incorporate appropriate references. > > There has been a significant level of discussion on this amongst the group > members. Elise has some concerns and we agreed to highlight that fact to the > ICG as part of our review. I will leave it to Elise to share those concerns if they > have still not been adequately addressed.. > > > > The Internet's incredible growth and success has been due in large part to its > shared global ownership, use of open standards, and freely accessible > processes for technology and policy development. The smooth operation of > the Internet depends upon a global, collaborative and community-driven > approach to managing key shared resources. > > Some of the most important shared resources are Internet Protocol > addresses, > Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters. > Taken > together these are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > (IANA) Function. > > The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative > coordinating services, under policy direction from 3 Operating Communities > (OCs), for many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate. > The three "operational communities" (OCs) are: the domain names > community (organized around ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory > committees); the number resources community (organized around the > regional address registries or RIRs); and the protocol parameters community > (organized around the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)). > > The identifiers are: > > 1) Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone; > 2) Internet Numbers Registry; > 3) Protocol Parameter Registry, including the "Address and Routing Parameter > Area" (.ARPA) TLD; > 4) INTernational treaty organizations (.INT) top-level domain. > > The services above are performed under a number of independent > operational agreements between the Operating Communities (OC) and ICANN > (as the current IANA Functions Operator), as well as under a contract between > ICANN and the USG Department of Commerce given their stewardship role > over these functions. > > It is important to note that the Policy and many of the Oversight > responsibilities for these tasks lie with the operational communities and not > the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), hence they do not form part of the IFO's > responsibilities. > > -- Policies are defined as "the agreed upon rules developed through > community-based processes by which shared Internet resources are > managed". > -- Oversight here is defined as "to ensure policies and implementation are > aligned and promote the coherent long-term development and use of shared > Internet resources." > -- Implementation of such shared Internet resources (i.e. IANA Functions) > should be "in a neutral and responsible manner, guided by the relevant policy > and oversight processes". > > Community specific (and community defined) global policy development and > oversight processes exist in the OCs as part of their responsibilities for > ensuring the continued smooth operation of the global Internet. A web of > relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and > mechanisms evolve as needed. This transition proposal was developed by the > 3 OCs, and existing coordination mechanisms were used to ensure its overall > coherence. > > Coordination across the OCs is clearly an essential component to the > Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral part of > the OCs operating and policy development processes. In the specific case > of the IANA Functions, each community has clearly restated their ongoing > commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the > situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA > Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy > decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run, > is decentralized. > > > > This could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere. We look > forward to the ICG's comments. > > Best, > Lynn, Patrik, Elise > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Fri Oct 2 15:31:13 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 18:31:13 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> Message-ID: <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> The key thing we felt was missing in the discussions so far is that for each registry there is already a given OC that has requested it, and because of that is in charge. To explain this without talking about history we felt was extremely difficult. It is definitely not the case that an OC that require a registry "must" have it managed by the IANA Function at ICANN. What is discussed is what parameters and judgement OCs use when they make a decision on where to host a registry, and the fact they do (and always have) counted cooperation and collaboration as important parameters for that decision. This was why we felt history was needed. As an explanation. Patrik On 2 Oct 2015, at 18:17, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > I would agree with Wolf-U that you'd need a lot more specifics in the paragraph about the web of relationships, I would go further and say that most of the preceding paragraphs are not needed, in that they describe the OCs themselves rather than the cooperative mechanisms among them. I don't think we need to do that. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> WUKnoben >> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 5:53 AM >> To: Lynn St.Amour ; IANA Stewardship Transition >> Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs >> >> I think this is a good summary - at least for insiders. I wonder whether we >> shouldn't be a bit more specific on how the interrelation between the OCs >> works. "A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the >> relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed." Some examples may be >> helpful: ICANN board membership, cross-membership between OCs, cross- >> community working groups... >> >> Just an idea. >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> From: Lynn St.Amour >> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:26 PM >> To: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs >> >> Hi, >> >> sending again, as I did not see this come through on our list. >> >> -------------- >> >> Please find attached the suggested text for action item: >> >> 10) St. Amour, Gerich, and Fältström to summarize how collaboration works >> today between the OCs. >> >> Our task was to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. >> In doing so, we recognized that the 3 OC model had not really been elaborated >> on in the ICG's proposal and as that was the basic underpinning, we tried to >> cover both. >> >> Our current thinking is that in Part 0 a new section after paragraph 01 could >> be useful. Basically, a high level model introduction (although Part >> 0 is evolving quite significantly and there may be a better place). >> >> The text below is based on RFC 2860, SAC-067, and the Internet Organizations >> (I*) Shared Resource document at >> https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/is-internetresources- >> 201308-en.pdf >> . Note: the text below would need to incorporate appropriate references. >> >> There has been a significant level of discussion on this amongst the group >> members. Elise has some concerns and we agreed to highlight that fact to the >> ICG as part of our review. I will leave it to Elise to share those concerns if they >> have still not been adequately addressed.. >> >> >> >> The Internet's incredible growth and success has been due in large part to its >> shared global ownership, use of open standards, and freely accessible >> processes for technology and policy development. The smooth operation of >> the Internet depends upon a global, collaborative and community-driven >> approach to managing key shared resources. >> >> Some of the most important shared resources are Internet Protocol >> addresses, >> Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters. >> Taken >> together these are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority >> (IANA) Function. >> >> The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative >> coordinating services, under policy direction from 3 Operating Communities >> (OCs), for many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate. >> The three "operational communities" (OCs) are: the domain names >> community (organized around ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory >> committees); the number resources community (organized around the >> regional address registries or RIRs); and the protocol parameters community >> (organized around the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)). >> >> The identifiers are: >> >> 1) Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone; >> 2) Internet Numbers Registry; >> 3) Protocol Parameter Registry, including the "Address and Routing Parameter >> Area" (.ARPA) TLD; >> 4) INTernational treaty organizations (.INT) top-level domain. >> >> The services above are performed under a number of independent >> operational agreements between the Operating Communities (OC) and ICANN >> (as the current IANA Functions Operator), as well as under a contract between >> ICANN and the USG Department of Commerce given their stewardship role >> over these functions. >> >> It is important to note that the Policy and many of the Oversight >> responsibilities for these tasks lie with the operational communities and not >> the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), hence they do not form part of the IFO's >> responsibilities. >> >> -- Policies are defined as "the agreed upon rules developed through >> community-based processes by which shared Internet resources are >> managed". >> -- Oversight here is defined as "to ensure policies and implementation are >> aligned and promote the coherent long-term development and use of shared >> Internet resources." >> -- Implementation of such shared Internet resources (i.e. IANA Functions) >> should be "in a neutral and responsible manner, guided by the relevant policy >> and oversight processes". >> >> Community specific (and community defined) global policy development and >> oversight processes exist in the OCs as part of their responsibilities for >> ensuring the continued smooth operation of the global Internet. A web of >> relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and >> mechanisms evolve as needed. This transition proposal was developed by the >> 3 OCs, and existing coordination mechanisms were used to ensure its overall >> coherence. >> >> Coordination across the OCs is clearly an essential component to the >> Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral part of >> the OCs operating and policy development processes. In the specific case >> of the IANA Functions, each community has clearly restated their ongoing >> commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the >> situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA >> Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy >> decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run, >> is decentralized. >> >> >> >> This could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere. We look >> forward to the ICG's comments. >> >> Best, >> Lynn, Patrik, Elise >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Oct 2 15:46:16 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:46:16 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder - Dublin travel support Message-ID: <012001d0fd29$7c8a9dd0$759fd970$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, We are currently coordinating and confirming arrangements for all ICG members who have requested for travel support for the Dublin meeting. If you have already sent in your Dublin travel support request to the Secretariat, and have NOT yet received any further information, forms, or emails from ICANN Constituency travel or BCD, please let me know. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 18:45:41 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:45:41 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> Message-ID: Dear All, I have no problem to consider the proposed cut and pase from RFC ,if it helps, Regards Kavouss 2015-10-02 17:31 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström : > The key thing we felt was missing in the discussions so far is that for > each registry there is already a given OC that has requested it, and > because of that is in charge. To explain this without talking about history > we felt was extremely difficult. > > It is definitely not the case that an OC that require a registry "must" > have it managed by the IANA Function at ICANN. What is discussed is what > parameters and judgement OCs use when they make a decision on where to host > a registry, and the fact they do (and always have) counted cooperation and > collaboration as important parameters for that decision. > > This was why we felt history was needed. As an explanation. > > Patrik > > On 2 Oct 2015, at 18:17, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > > I would agree with Wolf-U that you'd need a lot more specifics in the > paragraph about the web of relationships, I would go further and say that > most of the preceding paragraphs are not needed, in that they describe the > OCs themselves rather than the cooperative mechanisms among them. I don't > think we need to do that. > > > > --MM > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > >> WUKnoben > >> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 5:53 AM > >> To: Lynn St.Amour ; IANA Stewardship Transition > >> Coordination Group > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs > >> > >> I think this is a good summary - at least for insiders. I wonder > whether we > >> shouldn't be a bit more specific on how the interrelation between the > OCs > >> works. "A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the > >> relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed." Some examples may be > >> helpful: ICANN board membership, cross-membership between OCs, cross- > >> community working groups... > >> > >> Just an idea. > >> > >> Wolf-Ulrich > >> > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> From: Lynn St.Amour > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:26 PM > >> To: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> sending again, as I did not see this come through on our list. > >> > >> -------------- > >> > >> Please find attached the suggested text for action item: > >> > >> 10) St. Amour, Gerich, and Fältström to summarize how collaboration > works > >> today between the OCs. > >> > >> Our task was to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. > >> In doing so, we recognized that the 3 OC model had not really been > elaborated > >> on in the ICG's proposal and as that was the basic underpinning, we > tried to > >> cover both. > >> > >> Our current thinking is that in Part 0 a new section after paragraph 01 > could > >> be useful. Basically, a high level model introduction (although Part > >> 0 is evolving quite significantly and there may be a better place). > >> > >> The text below is based on RFC 2860, SAC-067, and the Internet > Organizations > >> (I*) Shared Resource document at > >> > https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/is-internetresources- > >> 201308-en.pdf > >> . Note: the text below would need to incorporate appropriate > references. > >> > >> There has been a significant level of discussion on this amongst the > group > >> members. Elise has some concerns and we agreed to highlight that fact > to the > >> ICG as part of our review. I will leave it to Elise to share those > concerns if they > >> have still not been adequately addressed.. > >> > >> > >> > >> The Internet's incredible growth and success has been due in large part > to its > >> shared global ownership, use of open standards, and freely accessible > >> processes for technology and policy development. The smooth operation > of > >> the Internet depends upon a global, collaborative and community-driven > >> approach to managing key shared resources. > >> > >> Some of the most important shared resources are Internet Protocol > >> addresses, > >> Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters. > >> Taken > >> together these are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers > Authority > >> (IANA) Function. > >> > >> The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative > >> coordinating services, under policy direction from 3 Operating > Communities > >> (OCs), for many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to > operate. > >> The three "operational communities" (OCs) are: the domain names > >> community (organized around ICANN's supporting organizations and > advisory > >> committees); the number resources community (organized around the > >> regional address registries or RIRs); and the protocol parameters > community > >> (organized around the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)). > >> > >> The identifiers are: > >> > >> 1) Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone; > >> 2) Internet Numbers Registry; > >> 3) Protocol Parameter Registry, including the "Address and Routing > Parameter > >> Area" (.ARPA) TLD; > >> 4) INTernational treaty organizations (.INT) top-level domain. > >> > >> The services above are performed under a number of independent > >> operational agreements between the Operating Communities (OC) and ICANN > >> (as the current IANA Functions Operator), as well as under a contract > between > >> ICANN and the USG Department of Commerce given their stewardship role > >> over these functions. > >> > >> It is important to note that the Policy and many of the Oversight > >> responsibilities for these tasks lie with the operational communities > and not > >> the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), hence they do not form part of the > IFO's > >> responsibilities. > >> > >> -- Policies are defined as "the agreed upon rules developed through > >> community-based processes by which shared Internet resources are > >> managed". > >> -- Oversight here is defined as "to ensure policies and implementation > are > >> aligned and promote the coherent long-term development and use of shared > >> Internet resources." > >> -- Implementation of such shared Internet resources (i.e. IANA > Functions) > >> should be "in a neutral and responsible manner, guided by the relevant > policy > >> and oversight processes". > >> > >> Community specific (and community defined) global policy development and > >> oversight processes exist in the OCs as part of their responsibilities > for > >> ensuring the continued smooth operation of the global Internet. A web > of > >> relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and > >> mechanisms evolve as needed. This transition proposal was developed by > the > >> 3 OCs, and existing coordination mechanisms were used to ensure its > overall > >> coherence. > >> > >> Coordination across the OCs is clearly an essential component to the > >> Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral > part of > >> the OCs operating and policy development processes. In the specific > case > >> of the IANA Functions, each community has clearly restated their ongoing > >> commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the > >> situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA > >> Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy > >> decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will > be run, > >> is decentralized. > >> > >> > >> > >> This could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere. We > look > >> forward to the ICG's comments. > >> > >> Best, > >> Lynn, Patrik, Elise > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Oct 2 23:42:51 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:42:51 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> Personally I think the main source of concern in the comments arose because commenters were unaware of the existing relationships between the OCs. The fact that the bodies that establish registry policies can also choose which operator will run the registry is interesting, but it’s a bit of a subtle point and I think it may be complicated to explain without adding a lot of additional clarifying value. I agree with Milton and others that the nugget in the text provided that is about collaboration is the piece that would be most useful to add. The proposals themselves go into a lot of detail about the overlaps in the registries (see paras 2016-2019, 3027, and P1.Annex A). Perhaps what we need in Part 0 is to summarize those facts at a high level and augment it with a brief description or examples of how the collaboration works (e.g., RIR participants also participate in IETF working groups; IETF participants also participate in TLD-related activities at ICANN; the IETF appoints people to the ICANN TLG and a liaison to the ICANN Board; ICANN staff and participants also participate in IETF working groups; the IANA staff is in daily contact with the IESG; etc.). Alissa > On Oct 2, 2015, at 8:31 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > The key thing we felt was missing in the discussions so far is that for each registry there is already a given OC that has requested it, and because of that is in charge. To explain this without talking about history we felt was extremely difficult. > > It is definitely not the case that an OC that require a registry "must" have it managed by the IANA Function at ICANN. What is discussed is what parameters and judgement OCs use when they make a decision on where to host a registry, and the fact they do (and always have) counted cooperation and collaboration as important parameters for that decision. > > This was why we felt history was needed. As an explanation. > > Patrik > > On 2 Oct 2015, at 18:17, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >> I would agree with Wolf-U that you'd need a lot more specifics in the paragraph about the web of relationships, I would go further and say that most of the preceding paragraphs are not needed, in that they describe the OCs themselves rather than the cooperative mechanisms among them. I don't think we need to do that. >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>> WUKnoben >>> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 5:53 AM >>> To: Lynn St.Amour ; IANA Stewardship Transition >>> Coordination Group >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs >>> >>> I think this is a good summary - at least for insiders. I wonder whether we >>> shouldn't be a bit more specific on how the interrelation between the OCs >>> works. "A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the >>> relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed." Some examples may be >>> helpful: ICANN board membership, cross-membership between OCs, cross- >>> community working groups... >>> >>> Just an idea. >>> >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> From: Lynn St.Amour >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:26 PM >>> To: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> sending again, as I did not see this come through on our list. >>> >>> -------------- >>> >>> Please find attached the suggested text for action item: >>> >>> 10) St. Amour, Gerich, and Fältström to summarize how collaboration works >>> today between the OCs. >>> >>> Our task was to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. >>> In doing so, we recognized that the 3 OC model had not really been elaborated >>> on in the ICG's proposal and as that was the basic underpinning, we tried to >>> cover both. >>> >>> Our current thinking is that in Part 0 a new section after paragraph 01 could >>> be useful. Basically, a high level model introduction (although Part >>> 0 is evolving quite significantly and there may be a better place). >>> >>> The text below is based on RFC 2860, SAC-067, and the Internet Organizations >>> (I*) Shared Resource document at >>> https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/is-internetresources- >>> 201308-en.pdf >>> . Note: the text below would need to incorporate appropriate references. >>> >>> There has been a significant level of discussion on this amongst the group >>> members. Elise has some concerns and we agreed to highlight that fact to the >>> ICG as part of our review. I will leave it to Elise to share those concerns if they >>> have still not been adequately addressed.. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Internet's incredible growth and success has been due in large part to its >>> shared global ownership, use of open standards, and freely accessible >>> processes for technology and policy development. The smooth operation of >>> the Internet depends upon a global, collaborative and community-driven >>> approach to managing key shared resources. >>> >>> Some of the most important shared resources are Internet Protocol >>> addresses, >>> Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters. >>> Taken >>> together these are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority >>> (IANA) Function. >>> >>> The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative >>> coordinating services, under policy direction from 3 Operating Communities >>> (OCs), for many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate. >>> The three "operational communities" (OCs) are: the domain names >>> community (organized around ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory >>> committees); the number resources community (organized around the >>> regional address registries or RIRs); and the protocol parameters community >>> (organized around the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)). >>> >>> The identifiers are: >>> >>> 1) Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone; >>> 2) Internet Numbers Registry; >>> 3) Protocol Parameter Registry, including the "Address and Routing Parameter >>> Area" (.ARPA) TLD; >>> 4) INTernational treaty organizations (.INT) top-level domain. >>> >>> The services above are performed under a number of independent >>> operational agreements between the Operating Communities (OC) and ICANN >>> (as the current IANA Functions Operator), as well as under a contract between >>> ICANN and the USG Department of Commerce given their stewardship role >>> over these functions. >>> >>> It is important to note that the Policy and many of the Oversight >>> responsibilities for these tasks lie with the operational communities and not >>> the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), hence they do not form part of the IFO's >>> responsibilities. >>> >>> -- Policies are defined as "the agreed upon rules developed through >>> community-based processes by which shared Internet resources are >>> managed". >>> -- Oversight here is defined as "to ensure policies and implementation are >>> aligned and promote the coherent long-term development and use of shared >>> Internet resources." >>> -- Implementation of such shared Internet resources (i.e. IANA Functions) >>> should be "in a neutral and responsible manner, guided by the relevant policy >>> and oversight processes". >>> >>> Community specific (and community defined) global policy development and >>> oversight processes exist in the OCs as part of their responsibilities for >>> ensuring the continued smooth operation of the global Internet. A web of >>> relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and >>> mechanisms evolve as needed. This transition proposal was developed by the >>> 3 OCs, and existing coordination mechanisms were used to ensure its overall >>> coherence. >>> >>> Coordination across the OCs is clearly an essential component to the >>> Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral part of >>> the OCs operating and policy development processes. In the specific case >>> of the IANA Functions, each community has clearly restated their ongoing >>> commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the >>> situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA >>> Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy >>> decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run, >>> is decentralized. >>> >>> >>> >>> This could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere. We look >>> forward to the ICG's comments. >>> >>> Best, >>> Lynn, Patrik, Elise >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Oct 2 23:54:31 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:54:31 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Assembling Part 0 In-Reply-To: <1B307D02-A89A-45BE-9340-810465CB9EC6@frobbit.se> References: <1B307D02-A89A-45BE-9340-810465CB9EC6@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <25BE68F4-325B-464A-BF3D-D62B000C5C15@cooperw.in> The assembled Part 0 is attached and in Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ba0al9cv8zkmex6/transition-proposal-part0-v1.docx?dl=0 This includes jurisdiction text from Martin, Joe’s text (split into different sections), Milton’s text on RZM, Jari’s text on IPR, Daniel and Paul’s text on complexity, and all of the text that I had added previously. It does not include the implementation inventory or the text about collaboration as those are still incomplete or under discussion. On the implementation inventory in particular, I think what we need for part 0 is a bulleted list of the items to be merged into the text in P0.V or to replace what is in P0.V. But since we don’t have the list of items for the names proposal yet I did not put that in. Please send comments if you have any. It would be great if we can get agreement on the existing text by middle of next week and turn our attention to the remaining bits and the answers to our OC questions in time for our call on October 8. Alissa > On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:57 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2015, at 6:40, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> I wanted to give a heads up that I will plan to assemble the various pieces of Part 0 into a single document on Friday so that people have time to review it before we (hopefully) receive responses from the OCs and turn our attention to those and to the summary document. The list discussion of the Part 0 components has been productive so far - thanks all. > > Thanks for this Alissa. You should get text from me, Lynn and Elise as well. We are doing one more round on the text today (i.e. Wednesday) across a number of timezones... > > Patrik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transition-proposal-part0-v1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 399934 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Sat Oct 3 04:00:44 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:00:44 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Assembling Part 0 In-Reply-To: <25BE68F4-325B-464A-BF3D-D62B000C5C15@cooperw.in> References: <1B307D02-A89A-45BE-9340-810465CB9EC6@frobbit.se> <25BE68F4-325B-464A-BF3D-D62B000C5C15@cooperw.in> Message-ID: I forgot one request: Secretariat, please fix the formatting and insert the missing links in the footnotes. Those paragraph numbers are a bear. Thanks, Alissa > On Oct 2, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > The assembled Part 0 is attached and in Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ba0al9cv8zkmex6/transition-proposal-part0-v1.docx?dl=0 > > This includes jurisdiction text from Martin, Joe’s text (split into different sections), Milton’s text on RZM, Jari’s text on IPR, Daniel and Paul’s text on complexity, and all of the text that I had added previously. It does not include the implementation inventory or the text about collaboration as those are still incomplete or under discussion. On the implementation inventory in particular, I think what we need for part 0 is a bulleted list of the items to be merged into the text in P0.V or to replace what is in P0.V. But since we don’t have the list of items for the names proposal yet I did not put that in. > > Please send comments if you have any. It would be great if we can get agreement on the existing text by middle of next week and turn our attention to the remaining bits and the answers to our OC questions in time for our call on October 8. > > Alissa > > > >> On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:57 PM, Patrik Fältström > wrote: >> >> On 30 Sep 2015, at 6:40, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> I wanted to give a heads up that I will plan to assemble the various pieces of Part 0 into a single document on Friday so that people have time to review it before we (hopefully) receive responses from the OCs and turn our attention to those and to the summary document. The list discussion of the Part 0 components has been productive so far - thanks all. >> >> Thanks for this Alissa. You should get text from me, Lynn and Elise as well. We are doing one more round on the text today (i.e. Wednesday) across a number of timezones... >> >> Patrik > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sat Oct 3 06:57:07 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2015 08:57:07 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <50C47772-2958-4FBB-A5BC-2B88B9B11F7C@frobbit.se> On 3 Oct 2015, at 1:42, Alissa Cooper wrote: > The fact that the bodies that establish registry policies can also choose which operator will run the registry is interesting, but it’s a bit of a subtle point and I think it may be complicated to explain without adding a lot of additional clarifying value. Hmm...let me just ensure my point is made clear here. As each registry is decided upon by the OC defining it, and not the OCs as a collective, collaboration is explicitly needed. They must explicitly reach out to the other OCs and collaborate with them. That was my point. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sat Oct 3 07:04:36 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2015 09:04:36 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <8E34794D-172C-4E9D-814F-3230B6DD6172@frobbit.se> On 3 Oct 2015, at 1:42, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Perhaps what we need in Part 0 is to summarize those facts at a high level and augment it with a brief description or examples of how the collaboration works (e.g., RIR participants also participate in IETF working groups; IETF participants also participate in TLD-related activities at ICANN; the IETF appoints people to the ICANN TLG and a liaison to the ICANN Board; ICANN staff and participants also participate in IETF working groups; the IANA staff is in daily contact with the IESG; etc.). We should if we go down this path "just" state for example: There is a multitude of collaboration mechanisms taking place. The simplest is that individual participants in the various OCs do participate in activities other OCs have. For example, there are active IETF participants participating in processes the RIRs host. And many ICANN participants and Staff are active in the IETF. There are also formal appointment of liaisons from for example IETF to ICANN Board. ICANN alos host TLG to which not only the OCs but also other groups have appointed participants. It is also the case that some PDPs (like the one in IETF) explicitly include cooperation with the IANA Function at ICANN to ensure that whatever the PDP is producing is possible to be implementable. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat Oct 3 10:36:45 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 06:36:45 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <50C47772-2958-4FBB-A5BC-2B88B9B11F7C@frobbit.se> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> <50C47772-2958-4FBB-A5BC-2B88B9B11F7C@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <560FAFBD.6010102@oracle.com> Patrik: I don't think there's a real issue with keeping the OC descriptions/historical function as long as we provide the needed examples of cooperation and consultation across different scenarios. The mere statement that the concept of cooperation exists is not sufficient to make the needed point that collaboration and cooperation are context specific/as needed or provide the kind of assurance that will address the misplaced desire to develop or impose a specific mechanism for collaboration and cooperation. Joe On 10/3/2015 2:57 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > On 3 Oct 2015, at 1:42, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> The fact that the bodies that establish registry policies can also choose which operator will run the registry is interesting, but it’s a bit of a subtle point and I think it may be complicated to explain without adding a lot of additional clarifying value. > Hmm...let me just ensure my point is made clear here. > > As each registry is decided upon by the OC defining it, and not the OCs as a collective, collaboration is explicitly needed. They must explicitly reach out to the other OCs and collaborate with them. > > That was my point. > > Patrik > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat Oct 3 10:39:20 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 06:39:20 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <8E34794D-172C-4E9D-814F-3230B6DD6172@frobbit.se> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> <8E34794D-172C-4E9D-814F-3230B6DD6172@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <560FB058.60908@oracle.com> This is helpful but providing specific examples across types of cooperation would be more helpful... On 10/3/2015 3:04 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > On 3 Oct 2015, at 1:42, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Perhaps what we need in Part 0 is to summarize those facts at a high level and augment it with a brief description or examples of how the collaboration works (e.g., RIR participants also participate in IETF working groups; IETF participants also participate in TLD-related activities at ICANN; the IETF appoints people to the ICANN TLG and a liaison to the ICANN Board; ICANN staff and participants also participate in IETF working groups; the IANA staff is in daily contact with the IESG; etc.). > We should if we go down this path "just" state for example: > > There is a multitude of collaboration mechanisms taking place. The simplest is that individual participants in the various OCs do participate in activities other OCs have. For example, there are active IETF participants participating in processes the RIRs host. And many ICANN participants and Staff are active in the IETF. There are also formal appointment of liaisons from for example IETF to ICANN Board. ICANN alos host TLG to which not only the OCs but also other groups have appointed participants. It is also the case that some PDPs (like the one in IETF) explicitly include cooperation with the IANA Function at ICANN to ensure that whatever the PDP is producing is possible to be implementable. > > Patrik > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sat Oct 3 11:00:49 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2015 13:00:49 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <560FAFBD.6010102@oracle.com> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> <50C47772-2958-4FBB-A5BC-2B88B9B11F7C@frobbit.se> <560FAFBD.6010102@oracle.com> Message-ID: The explicit examples that exists are very few. My favourite example involves the IP addresses. IETF set the over all policy for IP addresses. Some blocks are to be used for routing on the Internet. IANA keep track of this over arching allocation. RIRs then sets the detailed policy for those subsets of the addresses. When RIRs later request addresses from IANA, IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA zones (and whois) are updated accordingly, i.e. managed by IANA, although ARPA TLD is managed by IAB. So, IETF set the over arching policy, RIRs set the detailed policy. IANA is coordinating and keeps track of all of this. Patrik On 3 Oct 2015, at 12:36, joseph alhadeff wrote: > Patrik: > > I don't think there's a real issue with keeping the OC descriptions/historical function as long as we provide the needed examples of cooperation and consultation across different scenarios. The mere statement that the concept of cooperation exists is not sufficient to make the needed point that collaboration and cooperation are context specific/as needed or provide the kind of assurance that will address the misplaced desire to develop or impose a specific mechanism for collaboration and cooperation. > > Joe > > On 10/3/2015 2:57 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> On 3 Oct 2015, at 1:42, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> The fact that the bodies that establish registry policies can also choose which operator will run the registry is interesting, but it’s a bit of a subtle point and I think it may be complicated to explain without adding a lot of additional clarifying value. >> Hmm...let me just ensure my point is made clear here. >> >> As each registry is decided upon by the OC defining it, and not the OCs as a collective, collaboration is explicitly needed. They must explicitly reach out to the other OCs and collaborate with them. >> >> That was my point. >> >> Patrik >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Sat Oct 3 12:55:44 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:55:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for the ICG face-to-face Meeting #6: Day 1 Message-ID: <031501d0fdda$d263fb50$772bf1f0$@icgsec.asia> Hi All, Please find attached and linked below the minutes for Day 1 of the ICG F2F meeting in LA. Day 2 will be forthcoming. Dropbox shortlink to Day 1 minutes: http://icgsec.asia/1KRPAcP Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-sixth-f2f-meeting-18-sept-2015-v1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 58346 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Sat Oct 3 21:08:41 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 17:08:41 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Assembling Part 0 In-Reply-To: References: <1B307D02-A89A-45BE-9340-810465CB9EC6@frobbit.se> <25BE68F4-325B-464A-BF3D-D62B000C5C15@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <033901d0fe1f$aff9a840$0fecf8c0$@icgsec.asia> Hi All, Attached and linked below is the document with paragraph numbering added. I have added links to the footnote placeholders, and highlighted the other placeholders for text insertion. Dropbox shortlink: http://icgsec.asia/1M8efHU Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 12:01 AM To: Patrik Fältström Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assembling Part 0 I forgot one request: Secretariat, please fix the formatting and insert the missing links in the footnotes. Those paragraph numbers are a bear. Thanks, Alissa On Oct 2, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: The assembled Part 0 is attached and in Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ba0al9cv8zkmex6/transition-proposal-part0-v1.docx?dl=0 This includes jurisdiction text from Martin, Joe’s text (split into different sections), Milton’s text on RZM, Jari’s text on IPR, Daniel and Paul’s text on complexity, and all of the text that I had added previously. It does not include the implementation inventory or the text about collaboration as those are still incomplete or under discussion. On the implementation inventory in particular, I think what we need for part 0 is a bulleted list of the items to be merged into the text in P0.V or to replace what is in P0.V. But since we don’t have the list of items for the names proposal yet I did not put that in. Please send comments if you have any. It would be great if we can get agreement on the existing text by middle of next week and turn our attention to the remaining bits and the answers to our OC questions in time for our call on October 8. Alissa On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:57 PM, Patrik Fältström > wrote: On 30 Sep 2015, at 6:40, Alissa Cooper wrote: I wanted to give a heads up that I will plan to assemble the various pieces of Part 0 into a single document on Friday so that people have time to review it before we (hopefully) receive responses from the OCs and turn our attention to those and to the summary document. The list discussion of the Part 0 components has been productive so far - thanks all. Thanks for this Alissa. You should get text from me, Lynn and Elise as well. We are doing one more round on the text today (i.e. Wednesday) across a number of timezones... Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transition-proposal-part0-v1-formatted.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 923995 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sat Oct 3 21:56:19 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:56:19 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft summary of ccTLD comments on slide 22 Message-ID: <731EE29ADA11416B9EB96D7DB1A24F89@WUKPC> All, here’s a draft summary of ccTLD comments on slide 22 following the related action item from LA. Please comment/amend. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft summary of ccTLD comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16684 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sun Oct 4 13:10:28 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:10:28 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> <50C47772-2958-4FBB-A5BC-2B88B9B11F7C@frobbit.se> <560FAFBD.6010102@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56112544.6040703@oracle.com> good example of needs-generated dynamic cooperative process... On 10/3/2015 7:00 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > The explicit examples that exists are very few. My favourite example involves the IP addresses. > > IETF set the over all policy for IP addresses. Some blocks are to be used for routing on the Internet. IANA keep track of this over arching allocation. RIRs then sets the detailed policy for those subsets of the addresses. When RIRs later request addresses from IANA, IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA zones (and whois) are updated accordingly, i.e. managed by IANA, although ARPA TLD is managed by IAB. > > So, IETF set the over arching policy, RIRs set the detailed policy. IANA is coordinating and keeps track of all of this. > > Patrik > > On 3 Oct 2015, at 12:36, joseph alhadeff wrote: > >> Patrik: >> >> I don't think there's a real issue with keeping the OC descriptions/historical function as long as we provide the needed examples of cooperation and consultation across different scenarios. The mere statement that the concept of cooperation exists is not sufficient to make the needed point that collaboration and cooperation are context specific/as needed or provide the kind of assurance that will address the misplaced desire to develop or impose a specific mechanism for collaboration and cooperation. >> >> Joe >> >> On 10/3/2015 2:57 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>> On 3 Oct 2015, at 1:42, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>>> The fact that the bodies that establish registry policies can also choose which operator will run the registry is interesting, but it’s a bit of a subtle point and I think it may be complicated to explain without adding a lot of additional clarifying value. >>> Hmm...let me just ensure my point is made clear here. >>> >>> As each registry is decided upon by the OC defining it, and not the OCs as a collective, collaboration is explicitly needed. They must explicitly reach out to the other OCs and collaborate with them. >>> >>> That was my point. >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Oct 4 15:37:46 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:37:46 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <56112544.6040703@oracle.com> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> <50C47772-2958-4FBB-A5BC-2B88B9B11F7C@frobbit.se> <560FAFBD.6010102@oracle.com> <56112544.6040703@oracle.com> Message-ID: <9C685CB8-F933-4C76-8476-FAA04D90E271@gmail.com> Patrik I agree with you, I suggest the the broad lines os collaboration among various OCs to be summarized and included in the final report together with the example that you did provide BR Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 4 Oct 2015, at 15:10, joseph alhadeff wrote: > > good example of needs-generated dynamic cooperative process... > >> On 10/3/2015 7:00 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> The explicit examples that exists are very few. My favourite example involves the IP addresses. >> >> IETF set the over all policy for IP addresses. Some blocks are to be used for routing on the Internet. IANA keep track of this over arching allocation. RIRs then sets the detailed policy for those subsets of the addresses. When RIRs later request addresses from IANA, IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA zones (and whois) are updated accordingly, i.e. managed by IANA, although ARPA TLD is managed by IAB. >> >> So, IETF set the over arching policy, RIRs set the detailed policy. IANA is coordinating and keeps track of all of this. >> >> Patrik >> >>> On 3 Oct 2015, at 12:36, joseph alhadeff wrote: >>> >>> Patrik: >>> >>> I don't think there's a real issue with keeping the OC descriptions/historical function as long as we provide the needed examples of cooperation and consultation across different scenarios. The mere statement that the concept of cooperation exists is not sufficient to make the needed point that collaboration and cooperation are context specific/as needed or provide the kind of assurance that will address the misplaced desire to develop or impose a specific mechanism for collaboration and cooperation. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>>> On 10/3/2015 2:57 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>> On 3 Oct 2015, at 1:42, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The fact that the bodies that establish registry policies can also choose which operator will run the registry is interesting, but it’s a bit of a subtle point and I think it may be complicated to explain without adding a lot of additional clarifying value. >>>> Hmm...let me just ensure my point is made clear here. >>>> >>>> As each registry is decided upon by the OC defining it, and not the OCs as a collective, collaboration is explicitly needed. They must explicitly reach out to the other OCs and collaborate with them. >>>> >>>> That was my point. >>>> >>>> Patrik >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Oct 5 03:08:21 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 23:08:21 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for the ICG face-to-face Meeting #6: Day 2 Message-ID: <005301d0ff1b$188a6fb0$499f4f10$@icgsec.asia> Hi All, Please find attached and linked below the minutes for Day 2 of the ICG F2F meeting in LA. Dropbox shortlink to Day 2 minutes: http://icgsec.asia/1OgFeqX Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-sixth-f2f-meeting-19-sept-2015-v1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 64094 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Mon Oct 5 05:05:04 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 07:05:04 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for the ICG face-to-face Meeting #6: Day 2 In-Reply-To: <005301d0ff1b$188a6fb0$499f4f10$@icgsec.asia> References: <005301d0ff1b$188a6fb0$499f4f10$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Thanks Jennifer, a small duplication on page 4, ccTLD issues: in 3rd line remove “during the”. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Jennifer Chung Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:08 AM To: 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group' Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for the ICG face-to-face Meeting #6: Day 2 Hi All, Please find attached and linked below the minutes for Day 2 of the ICG F2F meeting in LA. Dropbox shortlink to Day 2 minutes: http://icgsec.asia/1OgFeqX Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Oct 5 14:54:45 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 10:54:45 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG LA meeting transcripts Message-ID: <016c01d0ff7d$c706a240$5513e6c0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The meeting transcripts for the ICG F2F meeting in Los Angeles are now available (attached). We have also made these available on the ICG meetings archive web page here: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ . Translated transcripts will be posted on the archive when they are available. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG LA Meeting Day 1- transcript_en.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1424852 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG LA Meeting Day 2- transcript_en.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1215474 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Oct 5 16:35:30 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:35:30 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for the ICG face-to-face Meeting #6: Day 2 In-Reply-To: References: <005301d0ff1b$188a6fb0$499f4f10$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <01d201d0ff8b$daebae00$90c30a00$@icgsec.asia> Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all, This has been reflected in v2 attached and linked below: Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1RqJm64 Please let me know if there are any further edits (for Day 1 and Day 2). I will consolidate any further edit requests on Wednesday 7 Oct and recirculate to the list. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 1:05 AM To: Jennifer Chung ; 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes for the ICG face-to-face Meeting #6: Day 2 Thanks Jennifer, a small duplication on page 4, ccTLD issues: in 3rd line remove “during the”. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Jennifer Chung Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:08 AM To: 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group' Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for the ICG face-to-face Meeting #6: Day 2 Hi All, Please find attached and linked below the minutes for Day 2 of the ICG F2F meeting in LA. Dropbox shortlink to Day 2 minutes: http://icgsec.asia/1OgFeqX Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer _____ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-sixth-f2f-meeting-19-sept-2015-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 64036 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Mon Oct 5 19:46:53 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:46:53 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory In-Reply-To: <88FB130D-0A06-44C5-AC0D-45C6969C8B52@LStAmour.org> References: <02d701d0f6f4$3002fe20$9008fa60$@icgsec.asia> <91409016-E95D-493F-A54C-7874748B009A@cooperw.in> <88FB130D-0A06-44C5-AC0D-45C6969C8B52@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <7E87E81B-F10A-4A5F-87F3-3A30B8F2037F@LStAmour.org> Dear colleagues, please find attached the list of bulleted Implementation items for Part 0. As you have already seen, there is a fuller (but still high level) "inventory" underway that describes the implementation items in more detail, identifies groups responsible for implementing and for oversight, and identifies dependencies. The current thinking is that this will be published in a separate document, but this remains an open item for one of our future meetings. I also note that there are a number of expectations re the ICG's role in overseeing implementation and we need to have a response/close gaps in expectations but this is also a discussion for a future meeting. Look forward to your reviews and comments. Lynn -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG - Part 0 - Implementation Items .docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 114299 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Hi Alissa, > > > On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Thank you Lynn. I like the detail here. Do you think it would be appropriate to include the whole table in Part 0? Or should we just have a simpler bulleted list in Part 0? Then we could include the table as an appendix, or not at all. > > A simple bulleted list would be better for Part 0. Perhaps an Appendix, or thinking aloud, it could be helpful to pull all these together in a separate Implementations document. That document could also specify roles and responsibilities, as clearly, different expectations abound for ICG and ICANN. It would be another opportunity to highlight the 3 OC "model", and a more visible implementation plan may provide comfort to some. > >> I would suggest having a separate section at the top for items that cross all three communities - PTI, IPR. > > Yes, will do, once we have all items in and the ICG has reviewed them. > >> I note that the items listed in paragraph 3062 of the proposal are not included in the table. I think they should be, and they require the addition of a new column I think, since they are actions expected to be taken but not necessarily required before contract expiry. > > I wondered about this as well. Given they are stated as an expectation and an acknowledgement, couldn't we get them now and include them in Part 0. That will be more of a commitment. > > As part of Part 0, the ICG could get/include the confirmation from all parties that protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. This is better done now than later anyway. > > And, for the 2nd point, again the same -- get the commitment now and include in PArt 0. > > Note: Paragraph 3062 included below for ease of other ICG members. > > Of course, I am also happy with including them in the Inventory if this is what the ICG prefers. > > Lynn > > ---- > > > • 3062 However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community’s expectations are met. Those expectations are the following: > > o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. > > o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries or other resources currently located at iana.org. >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Sep 27, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> >>> Dear ICG members, >>> >>> for your review, please find attached the Implementation Action Item Inventory for the Number and Protocol Parameters Operating Communities. Particular thanks go to Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP Co-chairs) for their work on the Numbers proposal, and to Alan Barrett for facilitating their support. >>> >>> Keith Drazek and I are working with the Names OC to complete the inventory for the Names proposal, but unfortunately we will not be able to complete this for another 2 -3 days. >>> >>> Best, >>> Lynn >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Oct 6 00:15:48 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:15:48 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory In-Reply-To: <7E87E81B-F10A-4A5F-87F3-3A30B8F2037F@LStAmour.org> References: <02d701d0f6f4$3002fe20$9008fa60$@icgsec.asia> <91409016-E95D-493F-A54C-7874748B009A@cooperw.in> <88FB130D-0A06-44C5-AC0D-45C6969C8B52@LStAmour.org> <7E87E81B-F10A-4A5F-87F3-3A30B8F2037F@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: Hi Lynn, Thank you for pulling this together. I think this is at the right level of abstraction for Part 0. I’ve attached a redlined version with some comments (Dropbox: ). Some questions/comments I had: * In the first section on items that need to be completed before sending the proposal to NTIA, items b) and c) look new to me, in that they do not appear in the proposals or in our expected question responses from the OCs. Where did these come from? * The items d) and e) were specifically not meant to be gating on the transition proposal completion, so I moved them down. * On the PTI items, at least from the IETF point of view, I don’t think the IETF community or the IAB has any plans to be involved in the aspects that you list. That is, the IETF’s position is that if ICANN chooses to subcontract the protocol parameters functions to its affiliate it is free to do so as long as it continues to meet its obligations under the MoU and SLAs. Assuming the numbers community has a similar position (Alan? Paul? or I could dig back through their comments), I think the PTI items belong in category 2. Thanks, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG - Part 0 - Implementation Items-ALC.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 110120 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > On Oct 5, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > please find attached the list of bulleted Implementation items for Part 0. As you have already seen, there is a fuller (but still high level) "inventory" underway that describes the implementation items in more detail, identifies groups responsible for implementing and for oversight, and identifies dependencies. The current thinking is that this will be published in a separate document, but this remains an open item for one of our future meetings. I also note that there are a number of expectations re the ICG's role in overseeing implementation and we need to have a response/close gaps in expectations but this is also a discussion for a future meeting. > > Look forward to your reviews and comments. > > Lynn > > > > > On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > >> Hi Alissa, >> >> >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> Thank you Lynn. I like the detail here. Do you think it would be appropriate to include the whole table in Part 0? Or should we just have a simpler bulleted list in Part 0? Then we could include the table as an appendix, or not at all. >> >> A simple bulleted list would be better for Part 0. Perhaps an Appendix, or thinking aloud, it could be helpful to pull all these together in a separate Implementations document. That document could also specify roles and responsibilities, as clearly, different expectations abound for ICG and ICANN. It would be another opportunity to highlight the 3 OC "model", and a more visible implementation plan may provide comfort to some. >> >>> I would suggest having a separate section at the top for items that cross all three communities - PTI, IPR. >> >> Yes, will do, once we have all items in and the ICG has reviewed them. >> >>> I note that the items listed in paragraph 3062 of the proposal are not included in the table. I think they should be, and they require the addition of a new column I think, since they are actions expected to be taken but not necessarily required before contract expiry. >> >> I wondered about this as well. Given they are stated as an expectation and an acknowledgement, couldn't we get them now and include them in Part 0. That will be more of a commitment. >> >> As part of Part 0, the ICG could get/include the confirmation from all parties that protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. This is better done now than later anyway. >> >> And, for the 2nd point, again the same -- get the commitment now and include in PArt 0. >> >> Note: Paragraph 3062 included below for ease of other ICG members. >> >> Of course, I am also happy with including them in the Inventory if this is what the ICG prefers. >> >> Lynn >> >> ---- >> >> >> • 3062 However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community’s expectations are met. Those expectations are the following: >> >> o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. >> >> o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries or other resources currently located at iana.org. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Sep 27, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear ICG members, >>>> >>>> for your review, please find attached the Implementation Action Item Inventory for the Number and Protocol Parameters Operating Communities. Particular thanks go to Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP Co-chairs) for their work on the Numbers proposal, and to Alan Barrett for facilitating their support. >>>> >>>> Keith Drazek and I are working with the Names OC to complete the inventory for the Names proposal, but unfortunately we will not be able to complete this for another 2 -3 days. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Lynn >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at LStAmour.org Tue Oct 6 01:26:56 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:26:56 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory In-Reply-To: References: <02d701d0f6f4$3002fe20$9008fa60$@icgsec.asia> <91409016-E95D-493F-A54C-7874748B009A@cooperw.in> <88FB130D-0A06-44C5-AC0D-45C6969C8B52@LStAmour.org> <7E87E81B-F10A-4A5F-87F3-3A30B8F2037F@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <9DBB8122-2E15-45B1-B9D2-863B9C72F3E8@LStAmour.org> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:15 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi Lynn, > > Thank you for pulling this together. I think this is at the right level of abstraction for Part 0. > > I’ve attached a redlined version with some comments (Dropbox: ). Some questions/comments I had: > Thanks Alissa, good questions. I will take a shot at responding, but the OCs themselves will need to weigh in here as they are their implementation items. > * In the first section on items that need to be completed before sending the proposal to NTIA, items b) and c) look new to me, in that they do not appear in the proposals or in our expected question responses from the OCs. Where did these come from? These were sent in from the Numbers community as part of what they thought they needed to implement. I extended them to the Protocol Parameters OC and sent a draft to those involved. As there was no objection, I left them in. Happy to take them out of course - for the PP OC or take them out altogether. WRT the 2nd point: "The Number and Protocol Parameter communities to confirm that the expected implementation of the PTI is as expected in their proposals." Again, submitted by the Numbers OC (and I extended to the PP OC), expect this is because there were a number of moving parts wrt the PTI and the Numbers OC felt it was a useful thing to do. Again, happy to take out if they prefer. > * The items d) and e) were specifically not meant to be gating on the transition proposal completion, so I moved them down. That's fine. Although I do think we should just get them done - good leverage at the moment. > * On the PTI items, at least from the IETF point of view, I don’t think the IETF community or the IAB has any plans to be involved in the aspects that you list. That is, the IETF’s position is that if ICANN chooses to subcontract the protocol parameters functions to its affiliate it is free to do so as long as it continues to meet its obligations under the MoU and SLAs. Assuming the numbers community has a similar position (Alan? Paul? or I could dig back through their comments), I think the PTI items belong in category 2. I tried to reflect in the intro. text (may need revising) that I didn't expect deep involvement from the Numbers and PP OCs in defining these activities nor participation in them (budget should be an exception) but did think it would be responsible for each OC (and responsible to the overall transition) to minimally monitor their development (if only to be sure they evolved as expected). If both those OCs are ok with just letting the CWG get on with it alone, then we can take them out. Best, Lynn > > Thanks, > Alissa > > >> On Oct 5, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> please find attached the list of bulleted Implementation items for Part 0. As you have already seen, there is a fuller (but still high level) "inventory" underway that describes the implementation items in more detail, identifies groups responsible for implementing and for oversight, and identifies dependencies. The current thinking is that this will be published in a separate document, but this remains an open item for one of our future meetings. I also note that there are a number of expectations re the ICG's role in overseeing implementation and we need to have a response/close gaps in expectations but this is also a discussion for a future meeting. >> >> Look forward to your reviews and comments. >> >> Lynn >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >> >>> Hi Alissa, >>> >>> >>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Lynn. I like the detail here. Do you think it would be appropriate to include the whole table in Part 0? Or should we just have a simpler bulleted list in Part 0? Then we could include the table as an appendix, or not at all. >>> >>> A simple bulleted list would be better for Part 0. Perhaps an Appendix, or thinking aloud, it could be helpful to pull all these together in a separate Implementations document. That document could also specify roles and responsibilities, as clearly, different expectations abound for ICG and ICANN. It would be another opportunity to highlight the 3 OC "model", and a more visible implementation plan may provide comfort to some. >>> >>>> I would suggest having a separate section at the top for items that cross all three communities - PTI, IPR. >>> >>> Yes, will do, once we have all items in and the ICG has reviewed them. >>> >>>> I note that the items listed in paragraph 3062 of the proposal are not included in the table. I think they should be, and they require the addition of a new column I think, since they are actions expected to be taken but not necessarily required before contract expiry. >>> >>> I wondered about this as well. Given they are stated as an expectation and an acknowledgement, couldn't we get them now and include them in Part 0. That will be more of a commitment. >>> >>> As part of Part 0, the ICG could get/include the confirmation from all parties that protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. This is better done now than later anyway. >>> >>> And, for the 2nd point, again the same -- get the commitment now and include in PArt 0. >>> >>> Note: Paragraph 3062 included below for ease of other ICG members. >>> >>> Of course, I am also happy with including them in the Inventory if this is what the ICG prefers. >>> >>> Lynn >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> >>> • 3062 However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community’s expectations are met. Those expectations are the following: >>> >>> o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. >>> >>> o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries or other resources currently located at iana.org. >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> On Sep 27, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear ICG members, >>>>> >>>>> for your review, please find attached the Implementation Action Item Inventory for the Number and Protocol Parameters Operating Communities. Particular thanks go to Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP Co-chairs) for their work on the Numbers proposal, and to Alan Barrett for facilitating their support. >>>>> >>>>> Keith Drazek and I are working with the Names OC to complete the inventory for the Names proposal, but unfortunately we will not be able to complete this for another 2 -3 days. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Lynn >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at LStAmour.org Tue Oct 6 02:00:24 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:00:24 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG - Summary of Completeness comments for Summary document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7B9EC1CC-96FB-4D5C-A4AE-CC380F83E71F@LStAmour.org> Dear colleagues, I was asked to summarize the comments on Proposal completeness for the Summary document. There is a lot of overlap between these "completeness" comments and the implementation inventory. We may want to combine them, but that is dependent upon the format of the summary doc. For the moment, I have not assumed they will be combined.. And, please review final paragraph below for my process assumption :-/ The majority of submitters indicated they thought the proposal was complete, and many of those that indicated a more qualified yes (and some that stated 'No") referred mainly to the fact that the Names proposal was incomplete as it was dependent upon the ICANN-level accountability mechanisms which were still under development by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG). The ICG has previously noted that the CWG - Stewardship proposal is dependent upon their affirmation that the work of the CCWG fully meets their requirements, and the ICG is monitoring this closely as it is a critical dependency. Another common point referenced the PTI model, mostly questioning the relationship between the 3 OCs, the status of various agreements/SLAs, or noting the work still to be done on various aspects of the PTI and its associated structures. Various points are being clarified with the appropriate OCs, and the ICG is working to make the PTI more understandable as a whole. The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) is enumerated (will be enumerated?) in more detail in the implementation section, and the ICG believes the implementation inventory covers all essential areas. At the time of the combined proposal submission, there was an open item regarding IANA trademarks and the iana.org domain name. This has since been addressed and all parties agree that they should be held by an entity that is not the provider of the IANA services. The 3 OCs have agreed to work together to identify and establish the IPR holder and this is to be completed during the transition ahead of the NTIA contract expiry. Finally, there were a number of comments concerning DNS Root Zone Management and these have been addressed or … Once the CWG confirms that their Accountability needs have been met by the CCWG proposal, the ICG will make a final determination as to whether the combined proposal is complete and ready to be sent to the NTIA. Best, Lynn From paf at frobbit.se Tue Oct 6 06:46:15 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:46:15 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action M6: 21 Message-ID: I am working down the list of action points for the chairs (in this case helping Alissa)... M6: 21 Cooper to summarize the comments on process for the summary document. The comments related to the process varies, although there is support from a diverse set of submissions from all over the world. Explicit support has been given from not only various parties actively participating in the operational communities, but also voices from private sector, academia and governments. Complaints on the suggestion fall into three categories. The first because they view NTIA set the criteria for the transition. This is explained by ISOC[1] is not the case. The criteria is generic and have been used for many years. The second group would have liked more time, and more participation from developing countries in the development of the proposal. The third is from one of the subgroups of the ICANN GNSO, IPC, that is not satisfied with the result. For the third group it is the ICG view that the issues have been discussed already at length, and the compromise reached is satisfactory. This gives that the only comment regarding improvement is how inclusive the process has been. Outreach the operational communities have done has been impressive, but when working under time pressure, it could always have been better. Given the wide number of responses from all areas of the world, ICG do still believe the requirements on outreach and input from all stakeholder groups from all over the world have been met. [1] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From paf at frobbit.se Tue Oct 6 06:47:38 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:47:38 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action M6: 19 Message-ID: <2A587DA8-05DF-43CA-841D-F85974A24779@frobbit.se> I am working down the list of action points for the chairs... M6: 19 Chairs to draft text summarizing comments about compatibility/interoperability for the summary document. When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between the proposals, we found two general trends. The first that comments that pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general were against the whole transition, and not against interoperability per se. The second that comments pointed out the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate entity would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and protocol parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have though explicitly said themselves they will have arrangements with ICANN, and how ICANN is implementing the solution is completely up to ICANN. It is for example expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF PDP regardless of how ICANN is restructuring itself due to the result of the CWG work. Another issue brought up is related to the IPR related to IANA, which has concluded in interoperable suggestions from the communities, which is described elsewhere. In general, comments did point out the proposals are interoperable, in part because they are not dependent on each other except in the cases mentioned above. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From paf at frobbit.se Tue Oct 6 06:47:56 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:47:56 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action M6:23 Message-ID: <01190ED4-506B-4964-AB0C-8B965852071C@frobbit.se> I am working down the list of action points for the chairs... M6: 23 Chairs to draft text acknowledging receipt of the comments related to freedom and free speech in the summary document. ICG do recognize comments related to free speech and freedom of expression. The main concern in the comments is about inviting entities not being known for supporting such essential rights to the decision making process. While it is true US Government by not extending the IANA Contract looses some power it has had, it is not the case that power is given to a single other country or entity. Instead, the idea with the transition is to transfer the power to the multi stakeholder community and find a solution that is robust enough to withstand any kind of capture. I.e. that no single entity ends up having such power that it can misuse it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Oct 6 17:02:15 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:02:15 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action M6:23 In-Reply-To: <01190ED4-506B-4964-AB0C-8B965852071C@frobbit.se> References: <01190ED4-506B-4964-AB0C-8B965852071C@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <03ca01d10058$c1aede80$450c9b80$@icgsec.asia> Dear Patrik and all, The draft texts from the chairs' action points are now on Dropbox: Free speech: http://icgsec.asia/1LfLvfD Process: http://icgsec.asia/1Lg4wmp Compatibility/Interoperability: http://icgsec.asia/1Lg4r2n The short link to the Dropbox Summary document subfolder: http://icgsec.asia/1ML7oa9 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 Patrik Fältström Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 2:48 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Action M6:23 I am working down the list of action points for the chairs... M6: 23 Chairs to draft text acknowledging receipt of the comments related to freedom and free speech in the summary document. ICG do recognize comments related to free speech and freedom of expression. The main concern in the comments is about inviting entities not being known for supporting such essential rights to the decision making process. While it is true US Government by not extending the IANA Contract looses some power it has had, it is not the case that power is given to a single other country or entity. Instead, the idea with the transition is to transfer the power to the multi stakeholder community and find a solution that is robust enough to withstand any kind of capture. I.e. that no single entity ends up having such power that it can misuse it. From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Oct 6 17:08:13 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:08:13 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum Message-ID: <03d101d10059$96c5f4a0$c451dde0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the comment received on the ICG forum, details below: Tuesday 6 Oct: Richard Hill - "How are you defining consensus?" - http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-October/000006.html Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Oct 6 17:39:50 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:39:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #24- THURSDAY, 8 October 2015, 19:00-20:30 UTC Message-ID: <03e301d1005e$015c0a30$04141e90$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #24 is scheduled for tomorrow: **Thursday, 8 October 2015** 19:00-20:30 UTC See time zone conversion here: http://icgsec.asia/1h0RZrd Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/ You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia. Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let the Secretariat team know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: ES, FR, ZH, RU PT interpretation services are available for this call. Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream. Agenda TBD As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out. Thank you! Best regards ICG Secretariat Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 4319 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Oct 6 17:47:25 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #24- THURSDAY, 8 October 2015, 19:00-20:30 UTC In-Reply-To: <03e301d1005e$015c0a30$04141e90$@icgsec.asia> References: <03e301d1005e$015c0a30$04141e90$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <03ee01d1005f$10de9210$329bb630$@icgsec.asia> Dear all, A small clarification - the call is scheduled for Thursday, 8 October, and not tomorrow as indicated in the first sentence in the previous email. The date and time in the email and on the calendar invites are correct. Apologies for any confusion caused. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 1:40 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #24- THURSDAY, 8 October 2015, 19:00-20:30 UTC Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #24 is scheduled for tomorrow: **Thursday, 8 October 2015** 19:00-20:30 UTC See time zone conversion here: http://icgsec.asia/1h0RZrd Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/ You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia. Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let the Secretariat team know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: ES, FR, ZH, RU PT interpretation services are available for this call. Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream. Agenda TBD As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out. Thank you! Best regards ICG Secretariat Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 4319 bytes Desc: not available URL: From housley at vigilsec.com Tue Oct 6 18:35:27 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:35:27 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action M6: 19 In-Reply-To: <2A587DA8-05DF-43CA-841D-F85974A24779@frobbit.se> References: <2A587DA8-05DF-43CA-841D-F85974A24779@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <3ABA3931-13A2-46FE-838C-D1D9D605AC25@vigilsec.com> Patrik: I think we can be more clear, especially regarding the second sentence. Also, we should not use the term "IETF PDP." I suggest: When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between the proposals, we found two general trends. The first trend came from people that were against the whole transition, and they pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general. They did point out new interoperability concerns caused by the transition. The second trend came people that were concerned that the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate entity would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and protocol parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have though explicitly said that they will maintain arrangements with ICANN, and are prepared for ICANN to implement with any structure that will maintain the current service level. For example, it is expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF protocol parameter policy setting process regardless of how ICANN is restructured as a result of the CWG proposal. Russ On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:47 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > I am working down the list of action points for the chairs... > > M6: 19 Chairs to draft text summarizing comments about compatibility/interoperability for the summary document. > > When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between the proposals, we found two general trends. The first that comments that pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general were against the whole transition, and not against interoperability per se. The second that comments pointed out the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate entity would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and protocol parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have though explicitly said themselves they will have arrangements with ICANN, and how ICANN is implementing the solution is completely up to ICANN. It is for example expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF PDP regardless of how ICANN is restructuring itself due to the result of the CWG work. > > Another issue brought up is related to the IPR related to IANA, which has concluded in interoperable suggestions from the communities, which is described elsewhere. > > In general, comments did point out the proposals are interoperable, in part because they are not dependent on each other except in the cases mentioned above. > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Tue Oct 6 18:53:14 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 20:53:14 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action M6: 19 In-Reply-To: <3ABA3931-13A2-46FE-838C-D1D9D605AC25@vigilsec.com> References: <2A587DA8-05DF-43CA-841D-F85974A24779@frobbit.se> <3ABA3931-13A2-46FE-838C-D1D9D605AC25@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: Thanks Russ!! Jennifer, can you update accordingly? paf On 6 Oct 2015, at 20:35, Russ Housley wrote: > Patrik: > > I think we can be more clear, especially regarding the second sentence. Also, we should not use the term "IETF PDP." I suggest: > > When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between the proposals, we found two general trends. The first trend came from people that were against the whole transition, and they pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general. They did point out new interoperability concerns caused by the transition. The second trend came people that were concerned that the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate entity would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and protocol parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have though explicitly said that they will maintain arrangements with ICANN, and are prepared for ICANN to implement with any structure that will maintain the current service level. For example, it is expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF protocol parameter policy setting process regardless of how ICANN is restructured as a result of the CWG proposal. > > Russ > > > On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:47 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> I am working down the list of action points for the chairs... >> >> M6: 19 Chairs to draft text summarizing comments about compatibility/interoperability for the summary document. >> >> When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between the proposals, we found two general trends. The first that comments that pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general were against the whole transition, and not against interoperability per se. The second that comments pointed out the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate entity would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and protocol parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have though explicitly said themselves they will have arrangements with ICANN, and how ICANN is implementing the solution is completely up to ICANN. It is for example expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF PDP regardless of how ICANN is restructuring itself due to the result of the CWG work. >> >> Another issue brought up is related to the IPR related to IANA, which has concluded in interoperable suggestions from the communities, which is described elsewhere. >> >> In general, comments did point out the proposals are interoperable, in part because they are not dependent on each other except in the cases mentioned above. >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Oct 6 19:02:51 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 15:02:51 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action M6: 19 In-Reply-To: References: <2A587DA8-05DF-43CA-841D-F85974A24779@frobbit.se> <3ABA3931-13A2-46FE-838C-D1D9D605AC25@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <040d01d10069$9aa29f50$cfe7ddf0$@icgsec.asia> Hi Patrik and Russ, Attached and linked please find v2. I have only replaced the first paragraph with Russ' edit, and kept the last two sentences. If Russ means to delete the last two sentences I can adjust accordingly. Direct short link: http://icgsec.asia/1PgVpUm Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 2:53 PM To: Russ Housley Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action M6: 19 Thanks Russ!! Jennifer, can you update accordingly? paf On 6 Oct 2015, at 20:35, Russ Housley wrote: > Patrik: > > I think we can be more clear, especially regarding the second sentence. Also, we should not use the term "IETF PDP." I suggest: > > When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between the proposals, we found two general trends. The first trend came from people that were against the whole transition, and they pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general. They did point out new interoperability concerns caused by the transition. The second trend came people that were concerned that the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate entity would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and protocol parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have though explicitly said that they will maintain arrangements with ICANN, and are prepared for ICANN to implement with any structure that will maintain the current service level. For example, it is expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF protocol parameter policy setting process regardless of how ICANN is restructured as a result of the CWG proposal. > > Russ > > > On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:47 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> I am working down the list of action points for the chairs... >> >> M6: 19 Chairs to draft text summarizing comments about compatibility/interoperability for the summary document. >> >> When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between the proposals, we found two general trends. The first that comments that pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general were against the whole transition, and not against interoperability per se. The second that comments pointed out the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate entity would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and protocol parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have though explicitly said themselves they will have arrangements with ICANN, and how ICANN is implementing the solution is completely up to ICANN. It is for example expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF PDP regardless of how ICANN is restructuring itself due to the result of the CWG work. >> >> Another issue brought up is related to the IPR related to IANA, which has concluded in interoperable suggestions from the communities, which is described elsewhere. >> >> In general, comments did point out the proposals are interoperable, in part because they are not dependent on each other except in the cases mentioned above. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: Compatibility-Interoperability-PAF-RH-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26778 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Tue Oct 6 21:32:27 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:32:27 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October -Shared Materials Message-ID: <097B2196F5BF4E75AB0699CB568FC6B8@WUKPC> All Here’s some material presented by Fadi which I’ve got from the SOAC leaders call today where the main topic of discussion was once again IANA accountability. Fadi warned of the dangers if the transition proposal cannot be finalised by December at the latest (see attached slides). He stated that Dublin was a critical juncture. From the slides you will also see that a 4 month period is required to move from agreement to implementation. Attention focused on the Dublin schedule and the need to maximise time spent on resolving this issue. On that basis ICANN staff are going to take another look at the current time plan to ascertain whether additional time can be set aside for community discussions on IANA accountability by losing or rearranging some sessions currently planned for Dublin. There will be another call at the end of this week/early next to look at the options. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SOAC call 6 OCT 2015.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 901934 bytes Desc: not available URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Wed Oct 7 16:46:13 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:46:13 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action M6: 19 In-Reply-To: <3ABA3931-13A2-46FE-838C-D1D9D605AC25@vigilsec.com> References: <2A587DA8-05DF-43CA-841D-F85974A24779@frobbit.se> <3ABA3931-13A2-46FE-838C-D1D9D605AC25@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: Did you mean to say : "They did NOT point out new interoperability concerns..." ? > -----Original Message----- > > related to interoperability in general. They did point out new interoperability > concerns caused by the transition. The second trend came people that were > concerned that the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate entity > would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and protocol > parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have though > explicitly said that they will maintain arrangements with ICANN, and are > prepared for ICANN to implement with any structure that will maintain the > current service level. For example, it is expected that IETF will continue to > require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to participate > in the IETF protocol parameter policy setting process regardless of how > ICANN is restructured as a result of the CWG proposal. > > Russ > > > On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:47 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > > I am working down the list of action points for the chairs... > > > > M6: 19 Chairs to draft text summarizing comments about > compatibility/interoperability for the summary document. > > > > When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between the > proposals, we found two general trends. The first that comments that > pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general were against the > whole transition, and not against interoperability per se. The second that > comments pointed out the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate > entity would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and > protocol parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have > though explicitly said themselves they will have arrangements with ICANN, > and how ICANN is implementing the solution is completely up to ICANN. It is > for example expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct > relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF PDP > regardless of how ICANN is restructuring itself due to the result of the CWG > work. > > > > Another issue brought up is related to the IPR related to IANA, which has > concluded in interoperable suggestions from the communities, which is > described elsewhere. > > > > In general, comments did point out the proposals are interoperable, in part > because they are not dependent on each other except in the cases > mentioned above. > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From housley at vigilsec.com Wed Oct 7 16:56:09 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 12:56:09 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action M6: 19 In-Reply-To: References: <2A587DA8-05DF-43CA-841D-F85974A24779@frobbit.se> <3ABA3931-13A2-46FE-838C-D1D9D605AC25@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <629B7188-129B-404E-957E-6AE6DC4D17AF@vigilsec.com> Yes. Thanks for the catch. On Oct 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Did you mean to say : "They did NOT point out new interoperability concerns..." ? > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> related to interoperability in general. They did point out new interoperability >> concerns caused by the transition. The second trend came people that were >> concerned that the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate entity >> would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and protocol >> parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have though >> explicitly said that they will maintain arrangements with ICANN, and are >> prepared for ICANN to implement with any structure that will maintain the >> current service level. For example, it is expected that IETF will continue to >> require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to participate >> in the IETF protocol parameter policy setting process regardless of how >> ICANN is restructured as a result of the CWG proposal. >> >> Russ >> >> >> On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:47 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> >>> I am working down the list of action points for the chairs... >>> >>> M6: 19 Chairs to draft text summarizing comments about >> compatibility/interoperability for the summary document. >>> >>> When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between the >> proposals, we found two general trends. The first that comments that >> pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general were against the >> whole transition, and not against interoperability per se. The second that >> comments pointed out the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate >> entity would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and >> protocol parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have >> though explicitly said themselves they will have arrangements with ICANN, >> and how ICANN is implementing the solution is completely up to ICANN. It is >> for example expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct >> relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF PDP >> regardless of how ICANN is restructuring itself due to the result of the CWG >> work. >>> >>> Another issue brought up is related to the IPR related to IANA, which has >> concluded in interoperable suggestions from the communities, which is >> described elsewhere. >>> >>> In general, comments did point out the proposals are interoperable, in part >> because they are not dependent on each other except in the cases >> mentioned above. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Wed Oct 7 16:59:12 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:59:12 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action M6: 19 In-Reply-To: <629B7188-129B-404E-957E-6AE6DC4D17AF@vigilsec.com> References: <2A587DA8-05DF-43CA-841D-F85974A24779@frobbit.se> <3ABA3931-13A2-46FE-838C-D1D9D605AC25@vigilsec.com> <629B7188-129B-404E-957E-6AE6DC4D17AF@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: Found another one in the next sentence: "The second trend came FROM people that were concerned that..." > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley at vigilsec.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 12:56 PM > To: Mueller, Milton L > Cc: "Patrik Fältström"; ICG > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action M6: 19 > > Yes. Thanks for the catch. > > > On Oct 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > > Did you mean to say : "They did NOT point out new interoperability > concerns..." ? > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> related to interoperability in general. They did point out new > >> interoperability concerns caused by the transition. The second trend > >> came people that were concerned that the internal ICANN structure > >> with PTI as a separate entity would make cooperation and > >> collaboration with the numbers and protocol parameters communities > >> harder. Both of these communities have though explicitly said that > >> they will maintain arrangements with ICANN, and are prepared for > >> ICANN to implement with any structure that will maintain the current > >> service level. For example, it is expected that IETF will continue to > >> require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to > >> participate in the IETF protocol parameter policy setting process > regardless of how ICANN is restructured as a result of the CWG proposal. > >> > >> Russ > >> > >> > >> On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:47 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> > >>> I am working down the list of action points for the chairs... > >>> > >>> M6: 19 Chairs to draft text summarizing comments about > >> compatibility/interoperability for the summary document. > >>> > >>> When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between > >>> the > >> proposals, we found two general trends. The first that comments that > >> pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general were > >> against the whole transition, and not against interoperability per > >> se. The second that comments pointed out the internal ICANN structure > >> with PTI as a separate entity would make cooperation and > >> collaboration with the numbers and protocol parameters communities > >> harder. Both of these communities have though explicitly said > >> themselves they will have arrangements with ICANN, and how ICANN is > >> implementing the solution is completely up to ICANN. It is for > >> example expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct > >> relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF > >> PDP regardless of how ICANN is restructuring itself due to the result of > the CWG work. > >>> > >>> Another issue brought up is related to the IPR related to IANA, > >>> which has > >> concluded in interoperable suggestions from the communities, which is > >> described elsewhere. > >>> > >>> In general, comments did point out the proposals are interoperable, > >>> in part > >> because they are not dependent on each other except in the cases > >> mentioned above. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Wed Oct 7 21:25:42 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:25:42 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft Agenda for tomorrow's call Message-ID: <061701d10146$bb9e3060$32da9120$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the draft agenda as proposed by the chairs below: > 1. Minutes approval - F2F #6 and Call #22 > > 2. Discussion of question responses from OCs (if we receive some) > > 3. Part 0 > > 4. Summary document sections (Joe/Manal) (time permitting) Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu Oct 8 02:12:58 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:12:58 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for ICG Call 22 In-Reply-To: <024c01d0fb90$f143d000$d3cb7000$@icgsec.asia> References: <024c01d0fb90$f143d000$d3cb7000$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <70C0DAEA-EF05-4C25-B610-2992A6BFDEC9@LStAmour.org> Hi Jennifer, Overall, the minutes look fine. I have only one comment re the sentence below (Section 2, para 4) as it doesn't parse well. Keith may want to edit… "Drazek concluded that there is uncertainty on the extent that the board's concerns substantial change the CCWG proposal that a third public comment period might be necessary. He stated that the CCWG is still working towards Dublin for delivery of a proposal for community approval Thanks for all the good work, Lynn On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, "Jennifer Chung" wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached and linked below, the draft minutes for ICG Call 22. > > Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1YOCZyz > > Recording, transcripts and chat transcripts are available on the archive: http://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ > > The minutes for the F2F will be forth-coming under separate cover. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 8 05:00:05 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:00:05 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG References: <56159668.4090704@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <77ABAF3D-8B7E-4998-8932-EFBBA99D9CAC@cooperw.in> Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani > Date: October 7, 2015 at 3:02:16 PM PDT > To: ianaxfer at nro.net > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG > > Dear Alissa, > > > > Thank you and the ICG for your efforts in reviewing the public comments and the continued work on the combined proposal, as well as on the overall process. > > Please see below the draft response from the CRISP Team. We will have the CRISP Team call at UTC13:00 8th Oct to make a final confirmation, and will get back to you by UTC23:59 9th Oct, in case we indentify any changes needed. > The responses are based on the Number Community proposal and the CRISP Team submission during public comment of the CWG-Stewardship proposal, therefore we wouldn't expect fundamental changes but there may be some additional points. > > > 1) Yes we are willing to commit to coordinate with the other communities, as we have expressed in the Number Community Proposal: > > III.A. > "the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the importance of communication and coordination between these communities to ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via processes distinct from this stewardship transition process." > > The Number Community is willing to talk to the other communities about what coordination mechanisms, existing or new ones, that will be necessary for this. > > > 2) Any of the elements managed by the RIRs and covered by the Number Community Proposal, including the "in-addr.arpa" and "ip6.arpa" should be managed and reviewed according to the Number Community proposal. The Number Community has its own review processes for this. > > As described in I.D of the Number Community proposal, "in-addr.arpa" and "ip6.arpa" are delegated to the IANA by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and “sub-delegations within this hierarchy are undertaken in accordance with the IANA’s address allocation practices” (RFC 3172). The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), in its role as the IANA Numbering Services Operator, administers these zones as “agreed technical work items” per the IETF-IANA MoU. This work is outside the scope of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) contract. We should not make changes to this existing arrangements, which are not a part of the NTIA contract. > Further, Provision of reverse DNS services in the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains may also require interaction with the .ARPA registry. Collectively these registries are referred to as the IANA Number Registries.According to our understanding the CSC and IFR processes has its scope focused on the names related function. Therefore, we strongly believe that "in-addr.arpa" and "ip6.arpa" are to be excluded from the CSC and IFR processes. As such, the Number Community does not see a need to participate in the CSC and IFR. > > > > > Izumi and Nurani on behalf of the CRISP Team > >> On 2015/09/25 7:04, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Dear CRISP team, >> >> Based on comments received during the ICG’s public comment period, the ICG has a number of questions for the CRISP team. We are requesting responses to these questions ideally by 7 October at 23:59 UTC (prior to the ICG’s final call before ICANN 54 on October 8), or by 14 October at 23:59 UTC if the CRISP team requires more time. We realize this is an aggressive timetable, so please keep us informed if you feel you need further time. >> >> The ICG would like to state explicitly that we do not expect a further ICG public comment period to be necessary on the combined proposal in response to the answers that the CRISP team may provide. While the ICG reserves the right to seek further public comment if we receive extensive amendments from any of the operational communities, we do not expect to do so at this time. >> >> 1) The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the numbers operational community provide such a commitment? I > f so, t > he ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal. >> >> 2) Please could you say whether or not the numbers community intends to participate in the CSC and IFR processes proposed by the names community. If the numbers community will participate, then will the participation be limited to the .ARPA domain name, or will it be broader? If the .ARPA domain name is excluded from the CSC and IFR processes, would that affect whether or not the numbers community participates? >> >> Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer at nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer at nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 8 05:01:30 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:01:30 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Questions from the ICG - batch 2 References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Marika Konings > Date: October 7, 2015 at 2:44:59 PM PDT > To: Alissa Cooper , "cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA" > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Questions from the ICG - batch 2 > > Dear Alissa, > > On behalf of the CWG-Stewardship and in consultation with the CWG-Stewardship Chairs, please find attached the CWG-Stewardship responses to the ICG questions. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: on behalf of Alissa Cooper > Date: Thursday 24 September 2015 16:01 > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Questions from the ICG - batch 2 > > Dear CWG, > > As indicated in my previous email, here is a second batch of questions from the ICG based on comments received during our public comment period. We have continued the numbering of the questions from the first batch. We do not expect to have any further questions for you at present although we may want to follow up upon receiving responses to these and from the other operational communities. > > We are requesting responses to these questions ideally by 7 October at 23:59 UTC (prior to the ICG’s final call before ICANN 54 on October 8), or by 14 October at 23:59 UTC if the CWG requires more time. We realize this is an aggressive timetable, so please keep us informed if you feel you need further time. > > Some of the questions below include requests or suggestions for amendments to the text of the CWG proposal as reflected in Part 1 of the combined proposal. The ICG would like to state explicitly that we do not expect a further ICG public comment period to be necessary on the combined proposal if these amendments are made. While the ICG reserves the right to seek further public comment if we receive extensive amendments from the operational communities, we do not expect to do so at this time. > > PTI > > 6) The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the names operational community provide such a commitment? If so, the ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal. > > 7) Please could you clarify whether or not compliance by ICANN and/or PTI is mandatory when decisions or recommendations are made by an IFR or Special IFR process. > > 8) Comments regarding the PTI board fall in two broad categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected to the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what the actual member selection process should be. We note that the board composition and selection procedures have been extensively discussed within the CWG and should be elaborated in detail during the implementation phase. > > Paragraph 1112 of the proposal says: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” This phrasing implies that it is the PTI itself rather than the PTI board that will have "the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” However, from the underlying legal expertise (from Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers as being applied to the PTI board. We’d like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. If so, we would propose amending the sentence by replacing “and” with “who” as follows: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors who have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” > > 9) Some comments raise concerns in the context of the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and independent directors) that the ICANN board and the PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by each seeking to hold the other board responsible. Paragraph 1113 in Part 1 indicates that the PTI board will be responsible for ensuring that the PTI "fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions contract with ICANN.” Could the CWG provide an unambiguous statement as to which of the two boards will ultimately be held accountable for ensuring that the IANA functions are carried out appropriately? Please include verbatim text amendments to Part 1 if you believe that would be appropriate to clarify this point. > > Scope > > 10) The CWG-Stewardship proposal uses the terms "IANA Functions Operator" and "IFO" in a way that appears to refer to the operator of the IANA Naming Functions, and not necessarily to the operator of other IANA functions, such as the IANA Numbering Functions or the IANA Protocol Parameters Functions. Please could you clarify whether or not these terms, in the CWG-Stewardship proposal, are intended to refer only to the names portion of the IANA functions. > > 11) Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA functions. > > 12) Please could you clarify whether or not the IANA Functions Review (IFR) and Special IFR apply only to the names portion of the IANA functions. > > 13) The .ARPA domain is used for special purposes. Please could you clarify whether or not the .ARPA domain will be included in the CSC and IFR processes. > > > Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG Questions - FINAL 7 October 2015.doc Type: application/msword Size: 90112 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Thu Oct 8 07:13:07 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:13:07 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Response from IETF IANAPLAN WG regarding the ICG question on coordination Message-ID: The IANAPLAN working group has discussed the coordination question from the ICG. In the working group’s opinion, informal coordination exists today and will continue, which is consistent with the commitment requested by the ICG. This is also consistent with an overall coordination commitment already indicated in the IANAPLAN proposal. The proposal is a consensus document of the IETF. From the proposal: The IETF will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and other parties that are mutually invested in the continued smooth operation of the Internet registries. The coordination approach is also consistent with the comments that were sent by the IAB to the ICG during the public comment period. See https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-icg-proposal/. Jari Arkko, IETF Chair and the Area Director for the IANAPLAN WG -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Thu Oct 8 07:14:47 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:14:47 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Response from IETF IANAPLAN WG regarding the ICG question on coordination In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62661923-7719-4C67-B32F-04D9284CCA06@piuha.net> I should also mention that the IAB will be sending comments on this matter. You should receive them soon. (Today, I think.) Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Thu Oct 8 07:20:06 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 07:20:06 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for ICG Call 22 In-Reply-To: <70C0DAEA-EF05-4C25-B610-2992A6BFDEC9@LStAmour.org> References: <024c01d0fb90$f143d000$d3cb7000$@icgsec.asia> <70C0DAEA-EF05-4C25-B610-2992A6BFDEC9@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: I'm fine with the minutes too and agree with Lynn that the sentence she quoted doesn't parse well .. Here are a couple of proposed edits, in Capital, subject to Keith's approval .. "Drazek concluded that there is uncertainty on the extent that the board's concerns WOULD REQUIRE substantial change IN the CCWG proposal that a third public comment period might be necessary. He stated that the CCWG is still working towards Dublin for delivery of a proposal for community approval I also noticed in the minutes that I've suggested clarifying in the FAQ the indirect interdependency between the ICG and the CCWG timelines, and that there was some agreement "Ismail suggested an adding this topic (and any other updates) to the ICG FAQ. o Adobe Connect chat: Uduma, St. Amour, Karrenberg agreed" Apologies for overlooking this .. But going back to the FAQ (https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-faq/ ), I found the point already covered in Q17 & Q33 and found that last sentence in Q16 doesn't hold anymore? Please let me know if this (or other topics) still need to be addressed by the FAQ .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 4:13 AM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes for ICG Call 22 Hi Jennifer, Overall, the minutes look fine. I have only one comment re the sentence below (Section 2, para 4) as it doesn't parse well. Keith may want to edit... "Drazek concluded that there is uncertainty on the extent that the board's concerns substantial change the CCWG proposal that a third public comment period might be necessary. He stated that the CCWG is still working towards Dublin for delivery of a proposal for community approval Thanks for all the good work, Lynn On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, "Jennifer Chung" wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached and linked below, the draft minutes for ICG Call 22. > > Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1YOCZyz > > Recording, transcripts and chat transcripts are available on the archive: http://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ > > The minutes for the F2F will be forth-coming under separate cover. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 8 07:34:59 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:34:59 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for ICG Call 22 In-Reply-To: References: <024c01d0fb90$f143d000$d3cb7000$@icgsec.asia> <70C0DAEA-EF05-4C25-B610-2992A6BFDEC9@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <56161CA3.3040002@ripe.net> I agree that the CCWG interdependency to be already covered sufficiently even without an explicit explanation of the time line. Anyone can see that our commitment to seek confirmation from CWG makes the date that we can submit our deliverable dependent on CCWG's result. However this does not mean we cannot finish work on our deliverable earlier than that. As far as I am aware we have no formal knowledge that CCWG is delayed. We should not make assumptions; thus as far as I am concerned the answer to Q16 still stands. Daniel On 8.10.15 9:20 , Manal Ismail wrote: > I'm fine with the minutes too and agree with Lynn that the sentence she quoted doesn't parse well .. > > Here are a couple of proposed edits, in Capital, subject to Keith's approval .. > "Drazek concluded that there is uncertainty on the extent that the board's concerns WOULD REQUIRE substantial change IN the CCWG proposal that a third public comment period might be necessary. He stated that the CCWG is still working towards Dublin for delivery of a proposal for community approval > > I also noticed in the minutes that I've suggested clarifying in the FAQ the indirect interdependency between the ICG and the CCWG timelines, and that there was some agreement > "Ismail suggested an adding this topic (and any other updates) to the ICG FAQ. > o Adobe Connect chat: Uduma, St. Amour, Karrenberg agreed" > Apologies for overlooking this .. But going back to the FAQ (https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-faq/ ), I found the point already covered in Q17 & Q33 and found that last sentence in Q16 doesn't hold anymore? > > Please let me know if this (or other topics) still need to be addressed by the FAQ .. > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 4:13 AM > To: Jennifer Chung > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes for ICG Call 22 > > Hi Jennifer, > > Overall, the minutes look fine. I have only one comment re the sentence below (Section 2, para 4) as it doesn't parse well. Keith may want to edit... > > "Drazek concluded that there is uncertainty on the extent that the board's concerns substantial change the CCWG proposal that a third public comment period might be necessary. He stated that the CCWG is still working towards Dublin for delivery of a proposal for community approval > > Thanks for all the good work, > > Lynn > > On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, "Jennifer Chung" wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Please find attached and linked below, the draft minutes for ICG Call 22. >> >> Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1YOCZyz >> >> Recording, transcripts and chat transcripts are available on the archive: http://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ >> >> The minutes for the F2F will be forth-coming under separate cover. >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Jennifer >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu Oct 8 11:13:35 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 22:13:35 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter Message-ID: Dear all, in our face to face meeting in LA, we decided to defer the discussion regarding what role — if any — the ICG should play during the implementation phase of the transition. Alissa also kicked off the discussion on the list. Here are some of my thoughts to guide us through to Dublin. In the comments submitted to the ICG, the Internet Society pointed out: “We would like to draw attention to the need for timely resolution of outstanding issues with regards to the implementation of the various processes, mechanisms and rules that relate to IANA. Details related to the structure of the new Post-Transition IANA (PTI) and the various bodies supporting it (e.g. CSC, IFR, etc.), implementation aspects of the CCWG proposal (as it relates to IANA), a plan to successfully conclude the SLAs, and a resolution of IANA-related intellectual property rights have yet to be fully fleshed out. We urge the community to determine: · How these implementation details will be addressed in a timely fashion to the satisfaction of all communities in a way that continues to meet the principles set forth by NTIA; and, · How all the communities will remain involved in the implementation of the new structure in an appropriate manner.” There is no denying the fact that a major part of the transition is implementation. I would like to argue that a sound transition implementation process is actually as important as having a complete and robust proposal. At this stage I do not believe we have one. A major part of the transition is oversight: the system that ultimately replaces the oversight of the US government. I think we all agree that as a group we are responsible for ensuring that the IANA functions continue to operate in a reliable, stable and predictable way. This means a design that is able to deliver and meet the expectations and needs of the IANA customers. I do not believe that this is achieved simply by saying that we have a full proposal, when there is clearly a gap arising from the status of the accountability model. As this group has repeatedly discussed, what the current proposal foresees is that, for the purposes of the IETF and the RIRs, ICANN will continue to operate as the IFO; ICANN, would therefore subcontract this responsibility to a new PTI. The names community will contract directly with PTI. So, in effect, PTI will be the entity responsible for maintaining and operating the IANA functions. PTI, however, is a new entity that will have to be established from scratch. And here is the gap. Were the US government to sign off on the transition and with the various groups — IANAPlan, CRISP and CWG (the latter disbanded) — who will make sure that the setting up of PTI and the various supporting bodies is done in a manner that ensures the stability of the system? How can we — as the Internet community — ensure that the new system supports the ongoing performance of IANA? I think that there is a role for us. This body is the only one currently in existence that is fully representative of the communities and one that would not have the learning curve. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that IANA continues to operate the way it does today — i.e. without any interruptions or issues of stability. I am not suggesting that we should micromanage the implementation process — rather that we could perhaps take the role of some sort of an advisory body that will meet and intervene if and when it considers that the implementation details fail to meet the standards of performance expected for IANA. Indeed, to provide a form of oversight. I am aware that this raises issues with our charter, however, given how lightweight the approach I am suggesting should be, this would require nothing more than a minor adjustment. This would only need to be in place until such time as PTI exists and back-to-back contracts (between the IETF, RIRs, ICANN and PTI) are in place. Of course, the community would need to be in support of such a thing, and a period of public comment would be called for. The situation at present is to my mind more than a little serious. I would therefore like to ask you to consider this in good faith. What I am suggesting is a very light weight and high level engagement plan that will allow us to see through this transition. We all know just how important this is, and the need for careful, cross-community oversight until the entire system is in place. Best regards Narelle -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 8 13:52:01 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:52:01 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56167501.1000808@ripe.net> I remain extremely skeptical about this for the reasons I have explained earlier. Those in favor should propose concrete language for a revised charter. This language should describe and limit the proposed purview and actions of the group as well as specify the point in time when this group will disband. Daniel On 8.10.15 13:13 , Narelle Clark wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear all, > in our face to face meeting in LA, we decided to defer the discussion > regarding what role — if any — the ICG should play during the > implementation phase of the transition. Alissa also kicked off the > discussion on the list. Here are some of my thoughts to guide us through > to Dublin. > > In the comments submitted to the ICG, the Internet Society pointed out: > > “We would like to draw attention to the need for timely resolution of > outstanding issues with regards to the implementation of the various > processes, mechanisms and rules that relate to IANA. Details related to > the structure of the new Post-Transition IANA (PTI) and the various > bodies supporting it (e.g. CSC, IFR, etc.), implementation aspects of > the CCWG proposal (as it relates to IANA), a plan to successfully > conclude the SLAs, and a resolution of IANA-related intellectual > property rights have yet to be fully fleshed out. We urge the community > to determine: > > · How these implementation details will be addressed in a timely > fashion to the satisfaction of all communities in a way that continues > to meet the principles set forth by NTIA; and, > > · How all the communities will remain involved in the > implementation of the new structure in an appropriate manner.” > > There is no denying the fact that a major part of the transition is > implementation. I would like to argue that a sound transition > implementation process is actually as important as having a complete and > robust proposal. At this stage I do not believe we have one. > > A major part of the transition is oversight: the system that ultimately > replaces the oversight of the US government. I think we all agree that > as a group we are responsible for ensuring that the IANA functions > continue to operate in a reliable, stable and predictable way. This > means a design that is able to deliver and meet the expectations and > needs of the IANA customers. I do not believe that this is achieved > simply by saying that we have a full proposal, when there is clearly a > gap arising from the status of the accountability model. > > As this group has repeatedly discussed, what the current proposal > foresees is that, for the purposes of the IETF and the RIRs, ICANN will > continue to operate as the IFO; ICANN, would therefore subcontract this > responsibility to a new PTI. The names community will contract directly > with PTI. So, in effect, PTI will be the entity responsible for > maintaining and operating the IANA functions. PTI, however, is a new > entity that will have to be established from scratch. > > And here is the gap. > > Were the US government to sign off on the transition and with the > various groups — IANAPlan, CRISP and CWG (the latter disbanded) — who > will make sure that the setting up of PTI and the various supporting > bodies is done in a manner that ensures the stability of the system? How > can we — as the Internet community — ensure that the new system supports > the ongoing performance of IANA? > > I think that there is a role for us. This body is the only one currently > in existence that is fully representative of the communities and one > that would not have the learning curve. > > We all have a vested interest in ensuring that IANA continues to operate > the way it does today — i.e. without any interruptions or issues of > stability. I am not suggesting that we should micromanage the > implementation process — rather that we could perhaps take the role of > some sort of an advisory body that will meet and intervene if and when > it considers that the implementation details fail to meet the standards > of performance expected for IANA. Indeed, to provide a form of oversight. > > I am aware that this raises issues with our charter, however, given how > lightweight the approach I am suggesting should be, this would require > nothing more than a minor adjustment. This would only need to be in > place until such time as PTI exists and back-to-back contracts (between > the IETF, RIRs, ICANN and PTI) are in place. > > > > Of course, the community would need to be in support of such a thing, > and a period of public comment would be called for. > > The situation at present is to my mind more than a little serious. I > would therefore like to ask you to consider this in good faith. > > What I am suggesting is a very light weight and high level engagement > plan that will allow us to see through this transition. We all know just > how important this is, and the need for careful, cross-community > oversight until the entire system is in place. > > > > Best regards > > > > Narelle > > > -- > > > > > > Narelle Clark > Director of Operations - Deputy CEO > *Australian Communications * > > *Consumer Action Network* > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 8 13:52:26 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:52:26 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Q4 Summary Draft In-Reply-To: <561613C5.2040400@ripe.net> References: <01d801d0fd54$9b277940$d1766bc0$@icgsec.asia> <560FAEB4.1050904@ripe.net> <561399EA.8020608@ripe.net> <561613C5.2040400@ripe.net> Message-ID: <073a01d101d0$923aafc0$b6b00f40$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Per Daniel, please see below for the summary text for workability. This text has been uploaded to Dropbox for your reference: http://icgsec.asia/1L4PfBu Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net] Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 2:57 AM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: Paul Wilson ; admin at icgsec.asia Subject: Re: Q4 Summary Draft Jennifer, Paul had no comments so far. So please take this as the text for workability. Afaic this completes our action item. Daniel On 6.10.15 11:52 , Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > > Paul, > > here is my final draft of the Q4 Summary. Apologies for the timing. I > had a number of "real world" tasks that interfered. I have kept it > short and subjective rather than quoting or summarising extensively. > Let me know if this is OK with you. Happy to see any suggestions for improvement. > > Daniel > > ------ > > The majority of commenters who answered the question considered the > transition proposal to be workable. Many noted that coordination > between the OCs is necessary during the implementation phase. > > A number of commenters flatly stated that the proposal was unworkable > because they disagreed with the transition as such. A few others > flatly stated that the proposal was unworkable without giving specific > reasons for this. We counted those as comments as "not workable", > even though they were not helpful in detecting any issues or > suggesting any improvements. > > Multiple commenters requested clarification on how the Protocol > Parameters and Numbers communities would interact with PTI. This was > indeed not clear yet at the time of this request for comments. The > operational communities have since stated that they intend to contract > with ICANN and to refrain from participating in PTI. > [ref to Alissa's words on this] > > A number of comments referred to the workability of accountability > mechanisms that are outside the scope of this proposal. We encourage > commenters to make these comments in the appropriate process. > > Based on all comments received we have not identified any major > workability issues with this proposal, provided that the OCs ensure > appropriate coordination both during and after the implementation. > From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 8 14:11:27 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for ICG Call 22 In-Reply-To: References: <024c01d0fb90$f143d000$d3cb7000$@icgsec.asia> <70C0DAEA-EF05-4C25-B610-2992A6BFDEC9@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <074101d101d3$3ab2d220$b0187660$@icgsec.asia> Dear Manal and all, Please find attached and linked v2 that incorporates your edits below. Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Mh7HLF Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg] Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 3:20 AM To: Lynn St.Amour ; Jennifer Chung Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes for ICG Call 22 I'm fine with the minutes too and agree with Lynn that the sentence she quoted doesn't parse well .. Here are a couple of proposed edits, in Capital, subject to Keith's approval .. "Drazek concluded that there is uncertainty on the extent that the board's concerns WOULD REQUIRE substantial change IN the CCWG proposal that a third public comment period might be necessary. He stated that the CCWG is still working towards Dublin for delivery of a proposal for community approval I also noticed in the minutes that I've suggested clarifying in the FAQ the indirect interdependency between the ICG and the CCWG timelines, and that there was some agreement "Ismail suggested an adding this topic (and any other updates) to the ICG FAQ. o Adobe Connect chat: Uduma, St. Amour, Karrenberg agreed" Apologies for overlooking this .. But going back to the FAQ (https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-f aq/ ), I found the point already covered in Q17 & Q33 and found that last sentence in Q16 doesn't hold anymore? Please let me know if this (or other topics) still need to be addressed by the FAQ .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 4:13 AM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes for ICG Call 22 Hi Jennifer, Overall, the minutes look fine. I have only one comment re the sentence below (Section 2, para 4) as it doesn't parse well. Keith may want to edit... "Drazek concluded that there is uncertainty on the extent that the board's concerns substantial change the CCWG proposal that a third public comment period might be necessary. He stated that the CCWG is still working towards Dublin for delivery of a proposal for community approval Thanks for all the good work, Lynn On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, "Jennifer Chung" wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached and linked below, the draft minutes for ICG Call 22. > > Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1YOCZyz > > Recording, transcripts and chat transcripts are available on the > archive: http://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ > > The minutes for the F2F will be forth-coming under separate cover. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > ____________________ > ___________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-10-sept-2015-draft-v2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 104448 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 8 15:23:27 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:23:27 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG LA F2F slide deck and public comment matrix Message-ID: <078101d101dd$48f91a60$daeb4f20$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, After confirmation from ICG members, please find attached changes to both documents as discussed at the F2F. Dropbox short link for the matrix: http://icgsec.asia/1VGRzZO Dropbox short link for the slide deck: http://icgsec.asia/1jQHbgW As a reminder, the ICG have agreed that the slide deck and matrix are not authoritative classifications of all the comments, but a record of what was used to facilitate discussion during the ICG LA F2F. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-F2F-6-v5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 449556 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-MASTER TEMPLATE-REVISED-v2.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 572658 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 8 16:12:11 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:12:11 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft Agenda for tomorrow's call In-Reply-To: <061701d10146$bb9e3060$32da9120$@icgsec.asia> References: <061701d10146$bb9e3060$32da9120$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Per a suggestion from Kavouss, I’ve added an agenda item to get an update on the CCWG status: 1. Minutes approval - F2F #6 and Call #22 2. Discussion of question responses from OCs (if we receive some) 3. Part 0 4. Update on CCWG 5. Summary document sections (Joe/Manal) (time permitting) Alissa > On Oct 7, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > Dear All, > > Please find the draft agenda as proposed by the chairs below: > > >> 1. Minutes approval - F2F #6 and Call #22 >> >> 2. Discussion of question responses from OCs (if we receive some) >> >> 3. Part 0 >> >> 4. Summary document sections (Joe/Manal) (time permitting) > > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 8 16:28:25 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:28:25 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 v2 Message-ID: <07ab01d101e6$5c0a4da0$141ee8e0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find attached and linked Part 0 v2 for discussion on the upcoming call. Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1PjVRRJ Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transition-proposal-part0-v2-formatted.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 381153 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Oct 8 16:37:19 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:37:19 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Narelle, very good catch on the situation the community is faced with. My thoughts go into similar direction. However before the ICG starts discussing its own charter the role I see here is to trigger the OCs to think about their role with respect to the implementation. That’s how I understood Alissa’s initiative. And this should start very soon. I’m sure the CWG – in case they decide to discuss the implementation process (which is not yet covered by the respective charter) – would take again a bottom-up process through the various stakeholders. This needs time. But my preference for the ICG is also not just to deliver the proposal, celebrating a party and...disappear. I see also a responsibility in supporting the community until the transition will be really “ready for implementation”. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Narelle Clark Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 1:13 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Cc: Bob Hinden ; Konstantinos Komaitis ; Kathy Brown ; Sally Wentworth Subject: [Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter Dear all, in our face to face meeting in LA, we decided to defer the discussion regarding what role — if any — the ICG should play during the implementation phase of the transition. Alissa also kicked off the discussion on the list. Here are some of my thoughts to guide us through to Dublin. In the comments submitted to the ICG, the Internet Society pointed out: “We would like to draw attention to the need for timely resolution of outstanding issues with regards to the implementation of the various processes, mechanisms and rules that relate to IANA. Details related to the structure of the new Post-Transition IANA (PTI) and the various bodies supporting it (e.g. CSC, IFR, etc.), implementation aspects of the CCWG proposal (as it relates to IANA), a plan to successfully conclude the SLAs, and a resolution of IANA-related intellectual property rights have yet to be fully fleshed out. We urge the community to determine: · How these implementation details will be addressed in a timely fashion to the satisfaction of all communities in a way that continues to meet the principles set forth by NTIA; and, · How all the communities will remain involved in the implementation of the new structure in an appropriate manner.” There is no denying the fact that a major part of the transition is implementation. I would like to argue that a sound transition implementation process is actually as important as having a complete and robust proposal. At this stage I do not believe we have one. A major part of the transition is oversight: the system that ultimately replaces the oversight of the US government. I think we all agree that as a group we are responsible for ensuring that the IANA functions continue to operate in a reliable, stable and predictable way. This means a design that is able to deliver and meet the expectations and needs of the IANA customers. I do not believe that this is achieved simply by saying that we have a full proposal, when there is clearly a gap arising from the status of the accountability model. As this group has repeatedly discussed, what the current proposal foresees is that, for the purposes of the IETF and the RIRs, ICANN will continue to operate as the IFO; ICANN, would therefore subcontract this responsibility to a new PTI. The names community will contract directly with PTI. So, in effect, PTI will be the entity responsible for maintaining and operating the IANA functions. PTI, however, is a new entity that will have to be established from scratch. And here is the gap. Were the US government to sign off on the transition and with the various groups — IANAPlan, CRISP and CWG (the latter disbanded) — who will make sure that the setting up of PTI and the various supporting bodies is done in a manner that ensures the stability of the system? How can we — as the Internet community — ensure that the new system supports the ongoing performance of IANA? I think that there is a role for us. This body is the only one currently in existence that is fully representative of the communities and one that would not have the learning curve. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that IANA continues to operate the way it does today — i.e. without any interruptions or issues of stability. I am not suggesting that we should micromanage the implementation process — rather that we could perhaps take the role of some sort of an advisory body that will meet and intervene if and when it considers that the implementation details fail to meet the standards of performance expected for IANA. Indeed, to provide a form of oversight. I am aware that this raises issues with our charter, however, given how lightweight the approach I am suggesting should be, this would require nothing more than a minor adjustment. This would only need to be in place until such time as PTI exists and back-to-back contracts (between the IETF, RIRs, ICANN and PTI) are in place. Of course, the community would need to be in support of such a thing, and a period of public comment would be called for. The situation at present is to my mind more than a little serious. I would therefore like to ask you to consider this in good faith. What I am suggesting is a very light weight and high level engagement plan that will allow us to see through this transition. We all know just how important this is, and the need for careful, cross-community oversight until the entire system is in place. Best regards Narelle -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu Oct 8 18:38:20 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:38:20 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <9C685CB8-F933-4C76-8476-FAA04D90E271@gmail.com> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> <50C47772-2958-4FBB-A5BC-2B88B9B11F7C@frobbit.se> <560FAFBD.6010102@oracle.com> <56112544.6040703@oracle.com> <9C685CB8-F933-4C76-8476-FAA04D90E271@gmail.com> Message-ID: <423A6FCB-0813-4F20-B458-59FA002F922B@LStAmour.org> First, we'd like to thank all the ICG members for their very helpful comments. And, we are now pulling this back up to the top of the pile, noting that it has not yet been incorporated into Part 0. The WG needs a bit more time to complete it. Lynn On Oct 4, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Patrik > I agree with you, I suggest the the broad lines os collaboration among various OCs to be summarized and included in the final report together with the example that you did provide > BR > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 4 Oct 2015, at 15:10, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >> good example of needs-generated dynamic cooperative process... >> >>> On 10/3/2015 7:00 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>> The explicit examples that exists are very few. My favourite example involves the IP addresses. >>> >>> IETF set the over all policy for IP addresses. Some blocks are to be used for routing on the Internet. IANA keep track of this over arching allocation. RIRs then sets the detailed policy for those subsets of the addresses. When RIRs later request addresses from IANA, IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA zones (and whois) are updated accordingly, i.e. managed by IANA, although ARPA TLD is managed by IAB. >>> >>> So, IETF set the over arching policy, RIRs set the detailed policy. IANA is coordinating and keeps track of all of this. >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>>> On 3 Oct 2015, at 12:36, joseph alhadeff wrote: >>>> >>>> Patrik: >>>> >>>> I don't think there's a real issue with keeping the OC descriptions/historical function as long as we provide the needed examples of cooperation and consultation across different scenarios. The mere statement that the concept of cooperation exists is not sufficient to make the needed point that collaboration and cooperation are context specific/as needed or provide the kind of assurance that will address the misplaced desire to develop or impose a specific mechanism for collaboration and cooperation. >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>>> On 10/3/2015 2:57 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>> On 3 Oct 2015, at 1:42, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The fact that the bodies that establish registry policies can also choose which operator will run the registry is interesting, but it’s a bit of a subtle point and I think it may be complicated to explain without adding a lot of additional clarifying value. >>>>> Hmm...let me just ensure my point is made clear here. >>>>> >>>>> As each registry is decided upon by the OC defining it, and not the OCs as a collective, collaboration is explicitly needed. They must explicitly reach out to the other OCs and collaborate with them. >>>>> >>>>> That was my point. >>>>> >>>>> Patrik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 8 18:43:33 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:43:33 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: IAB comment on question from ICG References: Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: IAB Chair > Subject: IAB comment on question from ICG > Date: October 8, 2015 at 9:58:28 AM PDT > To: alissa at cooperw.in > Cc: IAB > > The ICG has posed the following question to the protocol parameters > community: > > "The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation > as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the > Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA > functions could end up being carried out by different operators and > suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and > coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper > understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of > the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the > functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This > information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the > case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the > three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and > cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging > existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the protocol > parameters operational community provide such a commitment?" > > As noted in the IANAPLAN documents, elements of this work are already > in place: "The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the RIRs maintain an > ongoing informal dialog". The IAB further notes that it has a > chartered responsibility for maintaining technical liaison > relationships "with other organizations concerned with standards and > other technical and organizational issues relevant to the world-wide > Internet." ​The IAB believes that the information exchange described > by the ICG falls within the IAB's ongoing commitment to serve as the > point of coordination for the IETF, and the IAB remains committed to > continuing such coordination. Furthermore, the IAB believes that the > dialogue would be extended to other organizations as circumstances > require. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Wed Oct 7 18:07:35 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:07:35 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory In-Reply-To: References: <02d701d0f6f4$3002fe20$9008fa60$@icgsec.asia> <91409016-E95D-493F-A54C-7874748B009A@cooperw.in> <88FB130D-0A06-44C5-AC0D-45C6969C8B52@LStAmour.org> <7E87E81B-F10A-4A5F-87F3-3A30B8F2037F@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <20151007180735.GA1587@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Mon, 05 Oct 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I’ve attached a redlined version with some comments > (Dropbox: art%200%20-%20Implementation%20Items-ALC.docx?dl=0>). Some > questions/comments I had: [...] > * On the PTI items, at least from the IETF point of view, I > don’t think the IETF community or the IAB has any plans to be > involved in the aspects that you list. That is, the IETF’s > position is that if ICANN chooses to subcontract the protocol > parameters functions to its affiliate it is free to do so as > long as it continues to meet its obligations under the MoU and > SLAs. Assuming the numbers community has a similar position > (Alan? Paul? or I could dig back through their comments), I > think the PTI items belong in category 2. The draft SLA/contract between the RIRs and ICANN proposes to allow ICANN to subcontract, but only with permission, and the permission will not unreasonably be witheld. So, somewhere in the process, the RIRs will have to give ICANN permission to subcontract to PTI. See section 15.11. --apb (Alan Barrett) From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Oct 8 18:55:48 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:55:48 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] May be late for call Message-ID: I am at the ARIN meeting and there is supposed to be a break at 15:00 pm, but things may run over by 10-15 minutes Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu Oct 8 18:56:28 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:56:28 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for the ICG face-to-face Meeting #6: Day 1 In-Reply-To: <031501d0fdda$d263fb50$772bf1f0$@icgsec.asia> References: <031501d0fdda$d263fb50$772bf1f0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <4F8A94CD-5AF1-4051-A177-B76ACBF4FC63@LStAmour.org> Hi Jennifer, Day 1 minutes look v. good. And, a great job! Lynn On Oct 3, 2015, at 8:55 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Hi All, > > Please find attached and linked below the minutes for Day 1 of the ICG F2F meeting in LA. Day 2 will be forthcoming. > > Dropbox shortlink to Day 1 minutes: http://icgsec.asia/1KRPAcP > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu Oct 8 19:08:22 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:08:22 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter Message-ID: Thanks Daniel. My plan was to describe the situation first and see how people see things. Will draft some language. Narelle -------- Original message -------- From: Daniel Karrenberg Date: 9/10/2015 00:52 (GMT+10:00) To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter I remain extremely skeptical about this for the reasons I have explained earlier. Those in favor should propose concrete language for a revised charter. This language should describe and limit the proposed purview and actions of the group as well as specify the point in time when this group will disband. Daniel On 8.10.15 13:13 , Narelle Clark wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear all, > in our face to face meeting in LA, we decided to defer the discussion > regarding what role — if any — the ICG should play during the > implementation phase of the transition. Alissa also kicked off the > discussion on the list. Here are some of my thoughts to guide us through > to Dublin. > > In the comments submitted to the ICG, the Internet Society pointed out: > > “We would like to draw attention to the need for timely resolution of > outstanding issues with regards to the implementation of the various > processes, mechanisms and rules that relate to IANA. Details related to > the structure of the new Post-Transition IANA (PTI) and the various > bodies supporting it (e.g. CSC, IFR, etc.), implementation aspects of > the CCWG proposal (as it relates to IANA), a plan to successfully > conclude the SLAs, and a resolution of IANA-related intellectual > property rights have yet to be fully fleshed out. We urge the community > to determine: > > · How these implementation details will be addressed in a timely > fashion to the satisfaction of all communities in a way that continues > to meet the principles set forth by NTIA; and, > > · How all the communities will remain involved in the > implementation of the new structure in an appropriate manner.” > > There is no denying the fact that a major part of the transition is > implementation. I would like to argue that a sound transition > implementation process is actually as important as having a complete and > robust proposal. At this stage I do not believe we have one. > > A major part of the transition is oversight: the system that ultimately > replaces the oversight of the US government. I think we all agree that > as a group we are responsible for ensuring that the IANA functions > continue to operate in a reliable, stable and predictable way. This > means a design that is able to deliver and meet the expectations and > needs of the IANA customers. I do not believe that this is achieved > simply by saying that we have a full proposal, when there is clearly a > gap arising from the status of the accountability model. > > As this group has repeatedly discussed, what the current proposal > foresees is that, for the purposes of the IETF and the RIRs, ICANN will > continue to operate as the IFO; ICANN, would therefore subcontract this > responsibility to a new PTI. The names community will contract directly > with PTI. So, in effect, PTI will be the entity responsible for > maintaining and operating the IANA functions. PTI, however, is a new > entity that will have to be established from scratch. > > And here is the gap. > > Were the US government to sign off on the transition and with the > various groups — IANAPlan, CRISP and CWG (the latter disbanded) — who > will make sure that the setting up of PTI and the various supporting > bodies is done in a manner that ensures the stability of the system? How > can we — as the Internet community — ensure that the new system supports > the ongoing performance of IANA? > > I think that there is a role for us. This body is the only one currently > in existence that is fully representative of the communities and one > that would not have the learning curve. > > We all have a vested interest in ensuring that IANA continues to operate > the way it does today — i.e. without any interruptions or issues of > stability. I am not suggesting that we should micromanage the > implementation process — rather that we could perhaps take the role of > some sort of an advisory body that will meet and intervene if and when > it considers that the implementation details fail to meet the standards > of performance expected for IANA. Indeed, to provide a form of oversight. > > I am aware that this raises issues with our charter, however, given how > lightweight the approach I am suggesting should be, this would require > nothing more than a minor adjustment. This would only need to be in > place until such time as PTI exists and back-to-back contracts (between > the IETF, RIRs, ICANN and PTI) are in place. > > > > Of course, the community would need to be in support of such a thing, > and a period of public comment would be called for. > > The situation at present is to my mind more than a little serious. I > would therefore like to ask you to consider this in good faith. > > What I am suggesting is a very light weight and high level engagement > plan that will allow us to see through this transition. We all know just > how important this is, and the need for careful, cross-community > oversight until the entire system is in place. > > > > Best regards > > > > Narelle > > > -- > > > > > > Narelle Clark > Director of Operations - Deputy CEO > *Australian Communications * > > *Consumer Action Network* > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Oct 8 19:20:15 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:20:15 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter In-Reply-To: <56167501.1000808@ripe.net> References: <56167501.1000808@ripe.net> Message-ID: Daniel is assuming that we need to modify our charter to ensure that the proposal is complete. I don't think that is a correct assumption. If you look at the charter it does allow us to oversee certain aspects of implementation > -----Original Message----- > > I remain extremely skeptical about this for the reasons I have explained > earlier. Those in favor should propose concrete language for a revised charter. > This language should describe and limit the proposed purview and actions of > the group as well as specify the point in time when this group will disband. > > Daniel > > On 8.10.15 13:13 , Narelle Clark wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > in our face to face meeting in LA, we decided to defer the discussion > > regarding what role - if any - the ICG should play during the > > implementation phase of the transition. Alissa also kicked off the > > discussion on the list. Here are some of my thoughts to guide us > > through to Dublin. > > > > In the comments submitted to the ICG, the Internet Society pointed out: > > > > "We would like to draw attention to the need for timely resolution of > > outstanding issues with regards to the implementation of the various > > processes, mechanisms and rules that relate to IANA. Details related > > to the structure of the new Post-Transition IANA (PTI) and the various > > bodies supporting it (e.g. CSC, IFR, etc.), implementation aspects of > > the CCWG proposal (as it relates to IANA), a plan to successfully > > conclude the SLAs, and a resolution of IANA-related intellectual > > property rights have yet to be fully fleshed out. We urge the > > community to determine: > > > > * How these implementation details will be addressed in a timely > > fashion to the satisfaction of all communities in a way that continues > > to meet the principles set forth by NTIA; and, > > > > * How all the communities will remain involved in the > > implementation of the new structure in an appropriate manner." > > > > There is no denying the fact that a major part of the transition is > > implementation. I would like to argue that a sound transition > > implementation process is actually as important as having a complete > > and robust proposal. At this stage I do not believe we have one. > > > > A major part of the transition is oversight: the system that > > ultimately replaces the oversight of the US government. I think we all > > agree that as a group we are responsible for ensuring that the IANA > > functions continue to operate in a reliable, stable and predictable > > way. This means a design that is able to deliver and meet the > > expectations and needs of the IANA customers. I do not believe that > > this is achieved simply by saying that we have a full proposal, when > > there is clearly a gap arising from the status of the accountability model. > > > > As this group has repeatedly discussed, what the current proposal > > foresees is that, for the purposes of the IETF and the RIRs, ICANN > > will continue to operate as the IFO; ICANN, would therefore > > subcontract this responsibility to a new PTI. The names community will > > contract directly with PTI. So, in effect, PTI will be the entity > > responsible for maintaining and operating the IANA functions. PTI, > > however, is a new entity that will have to be established from scratch. > > > > And here is the gap. > > > > Were the US government to sign off on the transition and with the > > various groups - IANAPlan, CRISP and CWG (the latter disbanded) - who > > will make sure that the setting up of PTI and the various supporting > > bodies is done in a manner that ensures the stability of the system? > > How can we - as the Internet community - ensure that the new system > > supports the ongoing performance of IANA? > > > > I think that there is a role for us. This body is the only one > > currently in existence that is fully representative of the communities > > and one that would not have the learning curve. > > > > We all have a vested interest in ensuring that IANA continues to > > operate the way it does today - i.e. without any interruptions or > > issues of stability. I am not suggesting that we should micromanage > > the implementation process - rather that we could perhaps take the > > role of some sort of an advisory body that will meet and intervene if > > and when it considers that the implementation details fail to meet the > > standards of performance expected for IANA. Indeed, to provide a form of > oversight. > > > > I am aware that this raises issues with our charter, however, given > > how lightweight the approach I am suggesting should be, this would > > require nothing more than a minor adjustment. This would only need to > > be in place until such time as PTI exists and back-to-back contracts > > (between the IETF, RIRs, ICANN and PTI) are in place. > > > > > > > > Of course, the community would need to be in support of such a thing, > > and a period of public comment would be called for. > > > > The situation at present is to my mind more than a little serious. I > > would therefore like to ask you to consider this in good faith. > > > > What I am suggesting is a very light weight and high level engagement > > plan that will allow us to see through this transition. We all know > > just how important this is, and the need for careful, cross-community > > oversight until the entire system is in place. > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > Narelle > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Narelle Clark > > Director of Operations - Deputy CEO > > *Australian Communications * > > > > *Consumer Action Network* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From pwilson at apnic.net Thu Oct 8 19:25:57 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 05:25:57 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Numbers community response on in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa Message-ID: <83128144-116D-411F-A527-27BA33FEB5AB@apnic.net> From today’s chat log, in response to Jean-Jaques: > Alan Barrett (NRO): > https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2000/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ > > Russ Housley: RFC 3172 defines the Management Guidelines & Operational > Requirements for .arpa > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3172 I suggest that these references (one or both) could be included in the appropriate part of the text. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From jari.arkko at piuha.net Thu Oct 8 19:47:46 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 22:47:46 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 v2 In-Reply-To: <07ab01d101e6$5c0a4da0$141ee8e0$@icgsec.asia> References: <07ab01d101e6$5c0a4da0$141ee8e0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <335D30FC-0429-4FFC-B890-06817E8C2B26@piuha.net> For what it is worth, my first read of this indicates that the text is in good shape; I didn’t have any specific suggestions at this stage. Overall, there might be a thing or two to lift up from part 0 to the executive summary once we are done. (E.g.,the part about dependencies to CCWG work.) I also wonder if this is something that should lead to writing the “E. ICG Recommendation” text slightly differently. Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Thu Oct 8 20:04:01 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 20:04:01 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> FYI, my summary/distillation of the concerns expressed by the ICANN Board in response to the CCWG proposal: -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is new, untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited time available to meet the September 2016 date. -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body is potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to sell as not introducing risk at a delicate time. -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a commensurate level of accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do not have sufficient accountability at this time. -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside and from within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards is problematic. -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not balanced if it doesn't include all community members, and two groups (SSAC and RSSAC) have said they want to remain advisory. -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a voting structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model. -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes that are more easily implemented and understood. -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring will suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky message going into the transition. This is my personal interpretation only. Keith Drazek From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Oct 8 21:48:25 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 21:48:25 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: I think Keith's summary is an accurate summary of the board's position, but I would add the following caveats: 1. It's a tragedy that what we are getting and discussing at this time is the board's position only, instead of a comprehensive analysis of the public comments as a whole. The board is but one organization out of nearly 100 who commented. 2. Many of the board positions are obviously without merit, e.g.: > -----Original Message----- > -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is new, > untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited time available > to meet the September 2016 date. This argument asks one to prove a negative (X will not be captured). Can't be done. > -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body is > potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to sell as not > introducing risk at a delicate time. California Nonprofit public benefit corps are assumed to have members. What is "untested" is a Cal nonprofit WITHOUT either members or NTIA oversight The risk argument is especially cynical. What could be riskier than inadequate community empowerment mechanisms over an ICANN that has no USG oversight? > -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a commensurate level of > accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do not have sufficient > accountability at this time. Facepalm. All of the representatives in the SOs are elected, unlike ICANN's board, and membership in these entities is open subject to reasonable and accountable eligibility requirements. > -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside and from > within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards is problematic. There are all kinds of safeguards; requirements for supermajorities, an independent review process; this is just ICANN legal fearing it will lose control > -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not balanced if it > doesn't include all community members, and two groups (SSAC and RSSAC) > have said they want to remain advisory. And they should remain advisory. ACs are not policy making entities, they are appointed by the board, and their composition overlaps with the SOs significantly. > -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a voting > structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model. The level of hypocrisy in this one is so great I am unable to respond in language that would be suitable for a public forum > -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to > explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes that > are more easily implemented and understood. I think the board understands the proposal all too well. They see a loss of power, and are resisting it to the death, full stop. > -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring will > suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky message going into > the transition. ROFL. From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 8 22:01:23 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:01:23 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 24: Action items, attendance list, chat transcript Message-ID: <00a001d10214$dfd980f0$9f8c82d0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the action items (below), attendance list (below) and chat transcript (attached) for ICG Call 24. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies. Action Items 1. ICG members to send suggestions regarding ICG action on the names community’s responses re RZM to the internal-cg mailing list by 23:59 UTC, 9 October. 2. Cooper to reflect responses from protocol parameters, numbers, and names communities in Part 0. Attendance list: ICG Members Alissa Cooper (IETF) Alan Barrett (NRO) Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Demi Getschko (ISOC) James Bladel (GNSO) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Michael Niebel (GAC) Milton Muller (GNSO) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Apologies Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Kuo-Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call 24 chat transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 375967 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 8 22:26:18 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:26:18 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 v2 In-Reply-To: <335D30FC-0429-4FFC-B890-06817E8C2B26@piuha.net> References: <07ab01d101e6$5c0a4da0$141ee8e0$@icgsec.asia> <335D30FC-0429-4FFC-B890-06817E8C2B26@piuha.net> Message-ID: <338503D7-2A8A-4CE4-857D-3C94D200B2C8@cooperw.in> Thanks. I know we did not get to discuss Part 0 on the call today, but I’ve been assuming folks are mostly fine with the text given that it’s been circulated on the list for awhile and I haven’t seen many comments. I will incorporate the actions from today’s call and circulate a complete redline in advance of people traveling to Dublin. Alissa > On Oct 8, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > > For what it is worth, my first read of this indicates that the text is > in good shape; I didn’t have any specific suggestions at this stage. > > Overall, there might be a thing or two to lift up from part 0 to > the executive summary once we are done. (E.g.,the part about > dependencies to CCWG work.) I also wonder if this is something > that should lead to writing the “E. ICG Recommendation” text > slightly differently. > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Oct 8 22:29:56 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 22:29:56 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM Message-ID: Responding to Alissa's request for specific "what to do" proposals, Having thought as hard as I could about the RZM issue in the short time we have, I see one additional clarification question that can be asked (see #2 below). But on the "written agreement" issue unfortunately i see no viable option but to tell the CWG it has more work to do (#1). 1. I would propose that we say to CWG: As the proposal developer for the names OC, CWG must provide ICG and the NTIA with a proposal regarding the arrangements that will ensure that PTI's root zone changes will be implemented by the RZM. This proposal must be able to provide sufficient guidance to the NTIA's "separate and parallel process" that will modify the Verisign Cooperative Agreement. While this proposal need not be as detailed as the proposal regarding the PTI's relationship to ICANN, it should at least a) define and describe the roles and responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM; b) specify when the selection of Verisign as RZM would be reviewed or rebid; and c) codify the current preference that ICANN, IFO, and RZM be separate entities. 2. The ICG is concerned about a possible gap in the accountability arrangements regarding a change in the separate entities currently providing IFO and RZM. The CWG proposal says that any change must involve a public comment period, approval by a Standing Review Committee and the ICANN board. However, will the ICANN board appoint the Standing Review Committee? And what would stop the ICANN board from disregarding public comments if it chose to? Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 8 23:14:36 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:14:36 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory In-Reply-To: <9DBB8122-2E15-45B1-B9D2-863B9C72F3E8@LStAmour.org> References: <02d701d0f6f4$3002fe20$9008fa60$@icgsec.asia> <91409016-E95D-493F-A54C-7874748B009A@cooperw.in> <88FB130D-0A06-44C5-AC0D-45C6969C8B52@LStAmour.org> <7E87E81B-F10A-4A5F-87F3-3A30B8F2037F@LStAmour.org> <9DBB8122-2E15-45B1-B9D2-863B9C72F3E8@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: Thanks Lynn. Responses inline. I think part of the issue here is that I was thinking that this inventory would be most useful if it were to list the minimal set of actions that must be taken during the different phases, with the minimal set of actors that must be involved. Of course the communities are free to do more and be more involved, but I think the confusion from the public comments arose around exactly what the list of mandatory outstanding items is. > On Oct 5, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > >> * In the first section on items that need to be completed before sending the proposal to NTIA, items b) and c) look new to me, in that they do not appear in the proposals or in our expected question responses from the OCs. Where did these come from? > > These were sent in from the Numbers community as part of what they thought they needed to implement. I extended them to the Protocol Parameters OC and sent a draft to those involved. As there was no objection, I left them in. Happy to take them out of course - for the PP OC or take them out altogether. Ok. I think we need clarification from the numbers community. I was considering this first list as things that absolutely had to happen before we could send the proposal on for submission to NTIA. How will we know when the numbers community is done considering if additional actions are required? And if they really want us to wait before sending the proposal to NTIA for them to do this consideration, we probably need them to communicate that more clearly. On the other hand, if this is just something the numbers community is planning to do, that’s good to know but does not belong in the implementation inventory. To be honest it’s not obvious how anyone would really “implement” this item. Could you get a clarification from the numbers folks, or perhaps Alan or Paul could explain this? > > WRT the 2nd point: "The Number and Protocol Parameter communities to confirm that the expected implementation of the PTI is as expected in their proposals." Again, submitted by the Numbers OC (and I extended to the PP OC), expect this is because there were a number of moving parts wrt the PTI and the Numbers OC felt it was a useful thing to do. Again, happy to take out if they prefer. I don’t quite understand how this can happen before the proposal is submitted since the implementation plan for the PTI may not be available until after the proposal is submitted. I note that in the spreadsheet this item is in both the “due before submission” and “due before contract expiry” columns, so perhaps this is an error? > > >> * The items d) and e) were specifically not meant to be gating on the transition proposal completion, so I moved them down. > > That's fine. Although I do think we should just get them done - good leverage at the moment. I don’t think we as the ICG can make that call. It’s up to the community to decide the timing I think. > >> * On the PTI items, at least from the IETF point of view, I don’t think the IETF community or the IAB has any plans to be involved in the aspects that you list. That is, the IETF’s position is that if ICANN chooses to subcontract the protocol parameters functions to its affiliate it is free to do so as long as it continues to meet its obligations under the MoU and SLAs. Assuming the numbers community has a similar position (Alan? Paul? or I could dig back through their comments), I think the PTI items belong in category 2. > > I tried to reflect in the intro. text (may need revising) that I didn't expect deep involvement from the Numbers and PP OCs in defining these activities nor participation in them (budget should be an exception) but did think it would be responsible for each OC (and responsible to the overall transition) to minimally monitor their development (if only to be sure they evolved as expected). If both those OCs are ok with just letting the CWG get on with it alone, then we can take them out. Per my note above, I think these should be listed as items for the CWG to complete. I think we can note to the other operational communities may choose to be involved but it’s up to them to decide. Alissa > > Best, > Lynn > > >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> >>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> please find attached the list of bulleted Implementation items for Part 0. As you have already seen, there is a fuller (but still high level) "inventory" underway that describes the implementation items in more detail, identifies groups responsible for implementing and for oversight, and identifies dependencies. The current thinking is that this will be published in a separate document, but this remains an open item for one of our future meetings. I also note that there are a number of expectations re the ICG's role in overseeing implementation and we need to have a response/close gaps in expectations but this is also a discussion for a future meeting. >>> >>> Look forward to your reviews and comments. >>> >>> Lynn >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Alissa, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you Lynn. I like the detail here. Do you think it would be appropriate to include the whole table in Part 0? Or should we just have a simpler bulleted list in Part 0? Then we could include the table as an appendix, or not at all. >>>> >>>> A simple bulleted list would be better for Part 0. Perhaps an Appendix, or thinking aloud, it could be helpful to pull all these together in a separate Implementations document. That document could also specify roles and responsibilities, as clearly, different expectations abound for ICG and ICANN. It would be another opportunity to highlight the 3 OC "model", and a more visible implementation plan may provide comfort to some. >>>> >>>>> I would suggest having a separate section at the top for items that cross all three communities - PTI, IPR. >>>> >>>> Yes, will do, once we have all items in and the ICG has reviewed them. >>>> >>>>> I note that the items listed in paragraph 3062 of the proposal are not included in the table. I think they should be, and they require the addition of a new column I think, since they are actions expected to be taken but not necessarily required before contract expiry. >>>> >>>> I wondered about this as well. Given they are stated as an expectation and an acknowledgement, couldn't we get them now and include them in Part 0. That will be more of a commitment. >>>> >>>> As part of Part 0, the ICG could get/include the confirmation from all parties that protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. This is better done now than later anyway. >>>> >>>> And, for the 2nd point, again the same -- get the commitment now and include in PArt 0. >>>> >>>> Note: Paragraph 3062 included below for ease of other ICG members. >>>> >>>> Of course, I am also happy with including them in the Inventory if this is what the ICG prefers. >>>> >>>> Lynn >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> >>>> • 3062 However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community’s expectations are met. Those expectations are the following: >>>> >>>> o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. >>>> >>>> o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries or other resources currently located at iana.org. >>>>> >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 27, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear ICG members, >>>>>> >>>>>> for your review, please find attached the Implementation Action Item Inventory for the Number and Protocol Parameters Operating Communities. Particular thanks go to Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP Co-chairs) for their work on the Numbers proposal, and to Alan Barrett for facilitating their support. >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith Drazek and I are working with the Names OC to complete the inventory for the Names proposal, but unfortunately we will not be able to complete this for another 2 -3 days. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Lynn >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 8 23:16:29 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:16:29 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory In-Reply-To: <20151007180735.GA1587@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <02d701d0f6f4$3002fe20$9008fa60$@icgsec.asia> <91409016-E95D-493F-A54C-7874748B009A@cooperw.in> <88FB130D-0A06-44C5-AC0D-45C6969C8B52@LStAmour.org> <7E87E81B-F10A-4A5F-87F3-3A30B8F2037F@LStAmour.org> <20151007180735.GA1587@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: > On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > On Mon, 05 Oct 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> I’ve attached a redlined version with some comments (Dropbox: ). Some questions/comments I had: > [...] > >> * On the PTI items, at least from the IETF point of view, I don’t think the IETF community or the IAB has any plans to be involved in the aspects that you list. That is, the IETF’s position is that if ICANN chooses to subcontract the protocol parameters functions to its affiliate it is free to do so as long as it continues to meet its obligations under the MoU and SLAs. Assuming the numbers community has a similar position (Alan? Paul? or I could dig back through their comments), I think the PTI items belong in category 2. > > The draft SLA/contract between the RIRs and ICANN proposes to allow ICANN to subcontract, but only with permission, and the permission will not unreasonably be witheld. So, somewhere in the process, the RIRs will have to give ICANN permission to subcontract to PTI. See section 15.11. Thanks. Do you agree then that for the 14 items listed under PTI that those are CWG responsibilities, and the numbers community can choose to have input or not but is not required to be involved in any of them? Alissa > > --apb (Alan Barrett) From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 8 23:44:21 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:44:21 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> Hi Milton, > On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Responding to Alissa’s request for specific “what to do” proposals, > Having thought as hard as I could about the RZM issue in the short time we have, I see one additional clarification question that can be asked (see #2 below). But on the "written agreement" issue unfortunately i see no viable option but to tell the CWG it has more work to do (#1). > > 1. I would propose that we say to CWG: > > As the proposal developer for the names OC, CWG must provide ICG and the NTIA with a proposal regarding the arrangements that will ensure that PTI's root zone changes will be implemented by the RZM. This proposal must be able to provide sufficient guidance to the NTIA's "separate and parallel process" that will modify the Verisign Cooperative Agreement. While this proposal need not be as detailed as the proposal regarding the PTI's relationship to ICANN, it should at least a) define and describe the roles and responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM; b) specify when the selection of Verisign as RZM would be reviewed or rebid; and c) codify the current preference that ICANN, IFO, and RZM be separate entities. Hmmm. I think we have a pretty clear message from the CWG that they do not want to do this, at least for (a) and (b). I don’t think we can make them do it. However, I think we can build on the text you wrote already in part 0 and make it clear what the requirements are for this before the transition can be completed. Here is my suggested addition to para 84: OLD In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. In response to these concerns, the ICG took the following actions: (1) asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer; and (2) asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements. NEW In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed and the CWG-Stewardship expects this to be subject subject to a separate and parallel process. The ICG believes that this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > 2. The ICG is concerned about a possible gap in the accountability arrangements regarding a change in the separate entities currently providing IFO and RZM. The CWG proposal says that any change must involve a public comment period, approval by a Standing Review Committee and the ICANN board. However, will the ICANN board appoint the Standing Review Committee? Based on para 1155 (2) and the use of the word “delegates," it doesn’t seem like the board appoints the committee. I have been assuming that the communities referenced appoint their own representatives, and I think that has been the assumption of at least some of those communities as well. I would have to dig back from the CWG comments but I thought the IAB even said something to that effect. > And what would stop the ICANN board from disregarding public comments if it chose to? Isn’t this what the ICANN accountability mechanisms are for? Alissa > > Dr. Milton L. Mueller > Professor, School of Public Policy > Georgia Institute of Technology > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Fri Oct 9 01:44:41 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:44:41 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 v2 In-Reply-To: <338503D7-2A8A-4CE4-857D-3C94D200B2C8@cooperw.in> References: <07ab01d101e6$5c0a4da0$141ee8e0$@icgsec.asia> <335D30FC-0429-4FFC-B890-06817E8C2B26@piuha.net> <338503D7-2A8A-4CE4-857D-3C94D200B2C8@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <11B63ECA-ABC9-48B3-93DB-F59C86D33248@apnic.net> Agree with Jari - I think the text is in good shape. All the same I’ve added a few small refinements to the numbers community parts. I’ve also added a bunch of new footnotes, on an assumption of “the more the better”. My edits are in the dropbox here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vw88kaarzni31q8/transition-proposal-part0-v2-formatted-pw.docx?dl=0 Paul. On 9 Oct 2015, at 8:26, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Thanks. I know we did not get to discuss Part 0 on the call today, but > I’ve been assuming folks are mostly fine with the text given that > it’s been circulated on the list for awhile and I haven’t seen > many comments. I will incorporate the actions from today’s call and > circulate a complete redline in advance of people traveling to Dublin. > > Alissa > >> On Oct 8, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: >> >> For what it is worth, my first read of this indicates that the text >> is >> in good shape; I didn’t have any specific suggestions at this >> stage. >> >> Overall, there might be a thing or two to lift up from part 0 to >> the executive summary once we are done. (E.g.,the part about >> dependencies to CCWG work.) I also wonder if this is something >> that should lead to writing the “E. ICG Recommendation” text >> slightly differently. >> >> Jari >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Fri Oct 9 05:04:33 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:04:33 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6BEC9@ACCAN01.accan.local> Alissa You have: “and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.” Do you mean “the written agreement” [ie a contract be in place] or “a document outlining the roles, and therefore the principles, for any future agreement between the IFO and RZM be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.” Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 10:44 AM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM Hi Milton, On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: Responding to Alissa’s request for specific “what to do” proposals, Having thought as hard as I could about the RZM issue in the short time we have, I see one additional clarification question that can be asked (see #2 below). But on the "written agreement" issue unfortunately i see no viable option but to tell the CWG it has more work to do (#1). 1. I would propose that we say to CWG: As the proposal developer for the names OC, CWG must provide ICG and the NTIA with a proposal regarding the arrangements that will ensure that PTI's root zone changes will be implemented by the RZM. This proposal must be able to provide sufficient guidance to the NTIA's "separate and parallel process" that will modify the Verisign Cooperative Agreement. While this proposal need not be as detailed as the proposal regarding the PTI's relationship to ICANN, it should at least a) define and describe the roles and responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM; b) specify when the selection of Verisign as RZM would be reviewed or rebid; and c) codify the current preference that ICANN, IFO, and RZM be separate entities. Hmmm. I think we have a pretty clear message from the CWG that they do not want to do this, at least for (a) and (b). I don’t think we can make them do it. However, I think we can build on the text you wrote already in part 0 and make it clear what the requirements are for this before the transition can be completed. Here is my suggested addition to para 84: OLD In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. In response to these concerns, the ICG took the following actions: (1) asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer; and (2) asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements. NEW In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed and the CWG-Stewardship expects this to be subject subject to a separate and parallel process. The ICG believes that this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. 2. The ICG is concerned about a possible gap in the accountability arrangements regarding a change in the separate entities currently providing IFO and RZM. The CWG proposal says that any change must involve a public comment period, approval by a Standing Review Committee and the ICANN board. However, will the ICANN board appoint the Standing Review Committee? Based on para 1155 (2) and the use of the word “delegates," it doesn’t seem like the board appoints the committee. I have been assuming that the communities referenced appoint their own representatives, and I think that has been the assumption of at least some of those communities as well. I would have to dig back from the CWG comments but I thought the IAB even said something to that effect. And what would stop the ICANN board from disregarding public comments if it chose to? Isn’t this what the ICANN accountability mechanisms are for? Alissa Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Oct 9 05:15:35 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 22:15:35 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6BEC9@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6BEC9@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <39B294B3-9D56-4AAF-AB2E-5EA8610D3039@cooperw.in> Hi Narelle, I meant the contract needs to be in place. I thought this was the point Russ made on the call. Alissa > On Oct 8, 2015, at 10:04 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: > > Alissa > You have: > “and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.” > > Do you mean “the written agreement” [ie a contract be in place] or “a document outlining the roles, and therefore the principles, for any future agreement between the IFO and RZM be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.” > > > Narelle > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 10:44 AM > To: Mueller, Milton L > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM > > Hi Milton, > > On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: > > Responding to Alissa’s request for specific “what to do” proposals, > Having thought as hard as I could about the RZM issue in the short time we have, I see one additional clarification question that can be asked (see #2 below). But on the "written agreement" issue unfortunately i see no viable option but to tell the CWG it has more work to do (#1). > > 1. I would propose that we say to CWG: > > As the proposal developer for the names OC, CWG must provide ICG and the NTIA with a proposal regarding the arrangements that will ensure that PTI's root zone changes will be implemented by the RZM. This proposal must be able to provide sufficient guidance to the NTIA's "separate and parallel process" that will modify the Verisign Cooperative Agreement. While this proposal need not be as detailed as the proposal regarding the PTI's relationship to ICANN, it should at least a) define and describe the roles and responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM; b) specify when the selection of Verisign as RZM would be reviewed or rebid; and c) codify the current preference that ICANN, IFO, and RZM be separate entities. > > Hmmm. I think we have a pretty clear message from the CWG that they do not want to do this, at least for (a) and (b). I don’t think we can make them do it. > > However, I think we can build on the text you wrote already in part 0 and make it clear what the requirements are for this before the transition can be completed. Here is my suggested addition to para 84: > > OLD > In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. In response to these concerns, the ICG took the following actions: (1) asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer; and (2) asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements. > > NEW > In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed and the CWG-Stewardship expects this to be subject subject to a separate and parallel process. The ICG believes that this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > > > 2. The ICG is concerned about a possible gap in the accountability arrangements regarding a change in the separate entities currently providing IFO and RZM. The CWG proposal says that any change must involve a public comment period, approval by a Standing Review Committee and the ICANN board. However, will the ICANN board appoint the Standing Review Committee? > > Based on para 1155 (2) and the use of the word “delegates," it doesn’t seem like the board appoints the committee. I have been assuming that the communities referenced appoint their own representatives, and I think that has been the assumption of at least some of those communities as well. I would have to dig back from the CWG comments but I thought the IAB even said something to that effect. > > > And what would stop the ICANN board from disregarding public comments if it chose to? > > Isn’t this what the ICANN accountability mechanisms are for? > > Alissa > > > > Dr. Milton L. Mueller > Professor, School of Public Policy > Georgia Institute of Technology > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Fri Oct 9 05:19:17 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:19:17 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment In-Reply-To: References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Hi Keith, Milton et al, I said last night that the ICG should engage somehow in the CCWG discussion, so I’m happy to see this and to provide some comments on this thread. 1. There is high risk associated with CCWG proposal because it offers a substantially different Governance structure. It cannot be proved safe (as Milton said), which is exactly the problem when it is so far removed from the current structure. And it seems that time has run out to achieve agreement among the CCWG, let alone with others who need to be convinced. 2. On the other hand ICANN’s current model IS tested, by way of 15 years of operations. This was surely not an entire waste of time! If, based on that experience, the community can identify a set of changes to improve it in reliable ways, specifically by providing (for the first time?) properly enforceable accountability mechanisms, then that is surely worth considering as a less risky option, and maybe the only achievable option now. 3. There are quite a few risks as Milton said, but the risk of (un)acceptability of the final model is perfectly real and must be addressed objectively. I don’t think this can be characterised as “cynical”. 4. Much about the “sole membership” structure is yet to be determined, but cannot be determined in the time available. For this reason it is not necessary to be for or against it; but rather to ensure that a discussion and decision about this development can take place in the future, and be enforceable if and when that happens. 5. This is not about the board, and it is not only about explain/understanding it; it is about agreeing on a workable plan which can be understood by all concerned, and also being able to implement it in the time available. The board has stated clearly that they do not oppose the Single Member model per se. Unless someone wants to question them on some demonstrated contradiction, isn’t it better that we accept their assurance, and hold them to it later? As I said last night I think we do have a role and responsibility here. We at the ICG should be able to discuss this in an objective and sincere way. Unless we are happy to see the work we have done go down the drain, I really think we should get moving. Paul. On 9 Oct 2015, at 7:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > I think Keith's summary is an accurate summary of the board's > position, but I would add the following caveats: > > 1. It's a tragedy that what we are getting and discussing at this time > is the board's position only, instead of a comprehensive analysis of > the public comments as a whole. The board is but one organization out > of nearly 100 who commented. > > 2. Many of the board positions are obviously without merit, e.g.: > >> -----Original Message----- >> -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is >> new, >> untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited time >> available >> to meet the September 2016 date. > > This argument asks one to prove a negative (X will not be captured). > Can't be done. > >> -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body >> is >> potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to sell >> as not >> introducing risk at a delicate time. > > California Nonprofit public benefit corps are assumed to have members. > What is "untested" is a Cal nonprofit WITHOUT either members or NTIA > oversight > > The risk argument is especially cynical. What could be riskier than > inadequate community empowerment mechanisms over an ICANN that has no > USG oversight? > >> -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a >> commensurate level of >> accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do not have sufficient >> accountability at this time. > > Facepalm. All of the representatives in the SOs are elected, unlike > ICANN's board, and membership in these entities is open subject to > reasonable and accountable eligibility requirements. > >> -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside >> and from >> within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards is >> problematic. > > There are all kinds of safeguards; requirements for supermajorities, > an independent review process; this is just ICANN legal fearing it > will lose control > >> -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not >> balanced if it >> doesn't include all community members, and two groups (SSAC and >> RSSAC) >> have said they want to remain advisory. > > And they should remain advisory. ACs are not policy making entities, > they are appointed by the board, and their composition overlaps with > the SOs significantly. > >> -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a >> voting >> structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model. > > The level of hypocrisy in this one is so great I am unable to respond > in language that would be suitable for a public forum > >> -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to >> explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes >> that >> are more easily implemented and understood. > > I think the board understands the proposal all too well. They see a > loss of power, and are resisting it to the death, full stop. > >> -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring >> will >> suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky message >> going into >> the transition. > > ROFL. > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Fri Oct 9 07:41:05 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 09:41:05 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment In-Reply-To: References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <56176F91.8010409@ripe.net> Paul, No you are not cynical, just much too realistic and pragmatic for many. By and large you say what I see: changing the engines and the flight crew while in flight is not good operating practice and the flight crew is fully justified to resist it. I believe them when they say that they will consider better engines when safely on the ground. Daniel On 9.10.15 7:19 , Paul Wilson wrote: > Hi Keith, Milton et al, > > I said last night that the ICG should engage somehow in the CCWG > discussion, so I’m happy to see this and to provide some comments on > this thread. > > 1. There is high risk associated with CCWG proposal because it offers a > substantially different Governance structure. It cannot be proved safe > (as Milton said), which is exactly the problem when it is so far removed > from the current structure. And it seems that time has run out to > achieve agreement among the CCWG, let alone with others who need to be > convinced. > > 2. On the other hand ICANN’s current model IS tested, by way of 15 years > of operations. This was surely not an entire waste of time! If, based > on that experience, the community can identify a set of changes to > improve it in reliable ways, specifically by providing (for the first > time?) properly enforceable accountability mechanisms, then that is > surely worth considering as a less risky option, and maybe the only > achievable option now. > > 3. There are quite a few risks as Milton said, but the risk of > (un)acceptability of the final model is perfectly real and must be > addressed objectively. I don’t think this can be characterised as > “cynical”. > > 4. Much about the “sole membership” structure is yet to be determined, > but cannot be determined in the time available. For this reason it is > not necessary to be for or against it; but rather to ensure that a > discussion and decision about this development can take > place in the future, and be enforceable if and when that happens. > > 5. This is not about the board, and it is not only about > explain/understanding it; it is about agreeing on a workable plan which > can be understood by all concerned, and also being able to implement it > in the time available. > > The board has stated clearly that they do not oppose the Single Member > model per se. Unless someone wants to question them on some > demonstrated contradiction, isn’t it better that we accept their > assurance, and hold them to it later? > > As I said last night I think we do have a role and responsibility here. > We at the ICG should be able to discuss this in an objective and sincere > way. Unless we are happy to see the work we have done go down the drain, > I really think we should get moving. > > Paul. > > > > > On 9 Oct 2015, at 7:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >> I think Keith's summary is an accurate summary of the board's >> position, but I would add the following caveats: >> >> 1. It's a tragedy that what we are getting and discussing at this time >> is the board's position only, instead of a comprehensive analysis of >> the public comments as a whole. The board is but one organization out >> of nearly 100 who commented. >> >> 2. Many of the board positions are obviously without merit, e.g.: >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is >>> new, >>> untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited time >>> available >>> to meet the September 2016 date. >> >> This argument asks one to prove a negative (X will not be captured). >> Can't be done. >> >>> -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body is >>> potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to sell >>> as not >>> introducing risk at a delicate time. >> >> California Nonprofit public benefit corps are assumed to have members. >> What is "untested" is a Cal nonprofit WITHOUT either members or NTIA >> oversight >> >> The risk argument is especially cynical. What could be riskier than >> inadequate community empowerment mechanisms over an ICANN that has no >> USG oversight? >> >>> -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a >>> commensurate level of >>> accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do not have sufficient >>> accountability at this time. >> >> Facepalm. All of the representatives in the SOs are elected, unlike >> ICANN's board, and membership in these entities is open subject to >> reasonable and accountable eligibility requirements. >> >>> -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside >>> and from >>> within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards is >>> problematic. >> >> There are all kinds of safeguards; requirements for supermajorities, >> an independent review process; this is just ICANN legal fearing it >> will lose control >> >>> -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not >>> balanced if it >>> doesn't include all community members, and two groups (SSAC and RSSAC) >>> have said they want to remain advisory. >> >> And they should remain advisory. ACs are not policy making entities, >> they are appointed by the board, and their composition overlaps with >> the SOs significantly. >> >>> -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a voting >>> structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model. >> >> The level of hypocrisy in this one is so great I am unable to respond >> in language that would be suitable for a public forum >> >>> -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to >>> explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes that >>> are more easily implemented and understood. >> >> I think the board understands the proposal all too well. They see a >> loss of power, and are resisting it to the death, full stop. >> >>> -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring >>> will >>> suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky message >>> going into >>> the transition. >> >> ROFL. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Fri Oct 9 07:45:04 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 09:45:04 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter In-Reply-To: References: <56167501.1000808@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56177080.9030500@ripe.net> I stand by my interpretation of the charter: we are chartered to produce a proposal and nothing else. Daniel On 8.10.15 21:20 , Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Daniel is assuming that we need to modify our charter to ensure that the proposal is complete. I don't think that is a correct assumption. If you look at the charter it does allow us to oversee certain aspects of implementation > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> I remain extremely skeptical about this for the reasons I have explained >> earlier. Those in favor should propose concrete language for a revised charter. >> This language should describe and limit the proposed purview and actions of >> the group as well as specify the point in time when this group will disband. >> >> Daniel >> >> On 8.10.15 13:13 , Narelle Clark wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> in our face to face meeting in LA, we decided to defer the discussion >>> regarding what role - if any - the ICG should play during the >>> implementation phase of the transition. Alissa also kicked off the >>> discussion on the list. Here are some of my thoughts to guide us >>> through to Dublin. >>> >>> In the comments submitted to the ICG, the Internet Society pointed out: >>> >>> "We would like to draw attention to the need for timely resolution of >>> outstanding issues with regards to the implementation of the various >>> processes, mechanisms and rules that relate to IANA. Details related >>> to the structure of the new Post-Transition IANA (PTI) and the various >>> bodies supporting it (e.g. CSC, IFR, etc.), implementation aspects of >>> the CCWG proposal (as it relates to IANA), a plan to successfully >>> conclude the SLAs, and a resolution of IANA-related intellectual >>> property rights have yet to be fully fleshed out. We urge the >>> community to determine: >>> >>> * How these implementation details will be addressed in a timely >>> fashion to the satisfaction of all communities in a way that continues >>> to meet the principles set forth by NTIA; and, >>> >>> * How all the communities will remain involved in the >>> implementation of the new structure in an appropriate manner." >>> >>> There is no denying the fact that a major part of the transition is >>> implementation. I would like to argue that a sound transition >>> implementation process is actually as important as having a complete >>> and robust proposal. At this stage I do not believe we have one. >>> >>> A major part of the transition is oversight: the system that >>> ultimately replaces the oversight of the US government. I think we all >>> agree that as a group we are responsible for ensuring that the IANA >>> functions continue to operate in a reliable, stable and predictable >>> way. This means a design that is able to deliver and meet the >>> expectations and needs of the IANA customers. I do not believe that >>> this is achieved simply by saying that we have a full proposal, when >>> there is clearly a gap arising from the status of the accountability model. >>> >>> As this group has repeatedly discussed, what the current proposal >>> foresees is that, for the purposes of the IETF and the RIRs, ICANN >>> will continue to operate as the IFO; ICANN, would therefore >>> subcontract this responsibility to a new PTI. The names community will >>> contract directly with PTI. So, in effect, PTI will be the entity >>> responsible for maintaining and operating the IANA functions. PTI, >>> however, is a new entity that will have to be established from scratch. >>> >>> And here is the gap. >>> >>> Were the US government to sign off on the transition and with the >>> various groups - IANAPlan, CRISP and CWG (the latter disbanded) - who >>> will make sure that the setting up of PTI and the various supporting >>> bodies is done in a manner that ensures the stability of the system? >>> How can we - as the Internet community - ensure that the new system >>> supports the ongoing performance of IANA? >>> >>> I think that there is a role for us. This body is the only one >>> currently in existence that is fully representative of the communities >>> and one that would not have the learning curve. >>> >>> We all have a vested interest in ensuring that IANA continues to >>> operate the way it does today - i.e. without any interruptions or >>> issues of stability. I am not suggesting that we should micromanage >>> the implementation process - rather that we could perhaps take the >>> role of some sort of an advisory body that will meet and intervene if >>> and when it considers that the implementation details fail to meet the >>> standards of performance expected for IANA. Indeed, to provide a form of >> oversight. >>> >>> I am aware that this raises issues with our charter, however, given >>> how lightweight the approach I am suggesting should be, this would >>> require nothing more than a minor adjustment. This would only need to >>> be in place until such time as PTI exists and back-to-back contracts >>> (between the IETF, RIRs, ICANN and PTI) are in place. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course, the community would need to be in support of such a thing, >>> and a period of public comment would be called for. >>> >>> The situation at present is to my mind more than a little serious. I >>> would therefore like to ask you to consider this in good faith. >>> >>> What I am suggesting is a very light weight and high level engagement >>> plan that will allow us to see through this transition. We all know >>> just how important this is, and the need for careful, cross-community >>> oversight until the entire system is in place. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Narelle >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Narelle Clark >>> Director of Operations - Deputy CEO >>> *Australian Communications * >>> >>> *Consumer Action Network* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Fri Oct 9 10:27:06 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:27:06 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter In-Reply-To: <56177080.9030500@ripe.net> References: <56167501.1000808@ripe.net> <56177080.9030500@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5617967A.5020709@oracle.com> I would agree with Daniel about being careful of going beyond a strict rather than expansive reading of the Charter. I would also suggest that it would be useful for us to be called upon to take a role beyond the assembly and delivery of a proposal. I do think that we can all agreed that implementation is something we can address in terms of its coordination in the proposal, but I would not go as afar as to say "oversee" aspects of implementation. Joe On 10/9/2015 3:45 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > I stand by my interpretation of the charter: we are chartered to produce > a proposal and nothing else. > > Daniel > > On 8.10.15 21:20 , Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> Daniel is assuming that we need to modify our charter to ensure that the proposal is complete. I don't think that is a correct assumption. If you look at the charter it does allow us to oversee certain aspects of implementation >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> I remain extremely skeptical about this for the reasons I have explained >>> earlier. Those in favor should propose concrete language for a revised charter. >>> This language should describe and limit the proposed purview and actions of >>> the group as well as specify the point in time when this group will disband. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> On 8.10.15 13:13 , Narelle Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> in our face to face meeting in LA, we decided to defer the discussion >>>> regarding what role - if any - the ICG should play during the >>>> implementation phase of the transition. Alissa also kicked off the >>>> discussion on the list. Here are some of my thoughts to guide us >>>> through to Dublin. >>>> >>>> In the comments submitted to the ICG, the Internet Society pointed out: >>>> >>>> "We would like to draw attention to the need for timely resolution of >>>> outstanding issues with regards to the implementation of the various >>>> processes, mechanisms and rules that relate to IANA. Details related >>>> to the structure of the new Post-Transition IANA (PTI) and the various >>>> bodies supporting it (e.g. CSC, IFR, etc.), implementation aspects of >>>> the CCWG proposal (as it relates to IANA), a plan to successfully >>>> conclude the SLAs, and a resolution of IANA-related intellectual >>>> property rights have yet to be fully fleshed out. We urge the >>>> community to determine: >>>> >>>> * How these implementation details will be addressed in a timely >>>> fashion to the satisfaction of all communities in a way that continues >>>> to meet the principles set forth by NTIA; and, >>>> >>>> * How all the communities will remain involved in the >>>> implementation of the new structure in an appropriate manner." >>>> >>>> There is no denying the fact that a major part of the transition is >>>> implementation. I would like to argue that a sound transition >>>> implementation process is actually as important as having a complete >>>> and robust proposal. At this stage I do not believe we have one. >>>> >>>> A major part of the transition is oversight: the system that >>>> ultimately replaces the oversight of the US government. I think we all >>>> agree that as a group we are responsible for ensuring that the IANA >>>> functions continue to operate in a reliable, stable and predictable >>>> way. This means a design that is able to deliver and meet the >>>> expectations and needs of the IANA customers. I do not believe that >>>> this is achieved simply by saying that we have a full proposal, when >>>> there is clearly a gap arising from the status of the accountability model. >>>> >>>> As this group has repeatedly discussed, what the current proposal >>>> foresees is that, for the purposes of the IETF and the RIRs, ICANN >>>> will continue to operate as the IFO; ICANN, would therefore >>>> subcontract this responsibility to a new PTI. The names community will >>>> contract directly with PTI. So, in effect, PTI will be the entity >>>> responsible for maintaining and operating the IANA functions. PTI, >>>> however, is a new entity that will have to be established from scratch. >>>> >>>> And here is the gap. >>>> >>>> Were the US government to sign off on the transition and with the >>>> various groups - IANAPlan, CRISP and CWG (the latter disbanded) - who >>>> will make sure that the setting up of PTI and the various supporting >>>> bodies is done in a manner that ensures the stability of the system? >>>> How can we - as the Internet community - ensure that the new system >>>> supports the ongoing performance of IANA? >>>> >>>> I think that there is a role for us. This body is the only one >>>> currently in existence that is fully representative of the communities >>>> and one that would not have the learning curve. >>>> >>>> We all have a vested interest in ensuring that IANA continues to >>>> operate the way it does today - i.e. without any interruptions or >>>> issues of stability. I am not suggesting that we should micromanage >>>> the implementation process - rather that we could perhaps take the >>>> role of some sort of an advisory body that will meet and intervene if >>>> and when it considers that the implementation details fail to meet the >>>> standards of performance expected for IANA. Indeed, to provide a form of >>> oversight. >>>> I am aware that this raises issues with our charter, however, given >>>> how lightweight the approach I am suggesting should be, this would >>>> require nothing more than a minor adjustment. This would only need to >>>> be in place until such time as PTI exists and back-to-back contracts >>>> (between the IETF, RIRs, ICANN and PTI) are in place. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course, the community would need to be in support of such a thing, >>>> and a period of public comment would be called for. >>>> >>>> The situation at present is to my mind more than a little serious. I >>>> would therefore like to ask you to consider this in good faith. >>>> >>>> What I am suggesting is a very light weight and high level engagement >>>> plan that will allow us to see through this transition. We all know >>>> just how important this is, and the need for careful, cross-community >>>> oversight until the entire system is in place. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Narelle >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Narelle Clark >>>> Director of Operations - Deputy CEO >>>> *Australian Communications * >>>> >>>> *Consumer Action Network* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 mbashir at mbash.net Fri Oct 9 17:08:05 2015 From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 20:08:05 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Dublin Town Hall session Message-ID: Dear All, The chairs initially planned to have a joint town hall session with CCWG in Dublin, but later deiced that it would be best to split it because with the current focus on CCWG work people would want to have more time with CCWG, if we are sharing the session with them our message would be lost in the CCWG discussions. Therefore, we have asked ICANN to split the sessions in the meeting schedule, our session page details ( agenda and remote participation will be updated by Secretariat shortly ) : https://dublin54.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/mon-accountability-engagement Session Date: Mon, 19 October 2015 - 12:00 to 13:00 IST Room: Auditorium Regards, Mohamed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Oct 9 18:46:17 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:46:17 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 v2 In-Reply-To: <11B63ECA-ABC9-48B3-93DB-F59C86D33248@apnic.net> References: <07ab01d101e6$5c0a4da0$141ee8e0$@icgsec.asia> <335D30FC-0429-4FFC-B890-06817E8C2B26@piuha.net> <338503D7-2A8A-4CE4-857D-3C94D200B2C8@cooperw.in> <11B63ECA-ABC9-48B3-93DB-F59C86D33248@apnic.net> Message-ID: <0BC42ABD-9E3C-4C83-B9DB-4C7ECBCA368B@cooperw.in> Hi Paul, Thanks. I have some questions and comments on some of your edits. Footnote 14: seeing as the numbers proposal and the other two proposals are included verbatim in the document, I think it’s confusing to cite the version hosted at nro.net . We do not have similar footnotes for the other two proposals. So I’d prefer to leave this out. Para 13: I think the point about coordination is a good addition, but I’m not sure it belongs in the summary of the proposal. I’d like to move it down into the interoperability section. Thanks, Alissa > On Oct 8, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Agree with Jari - I think the text is in good shape. > > All the same I’ve added a few small refinements to the numbers community parts. I’ve also added a bunch of new footnotes, on an assumption of “the more the better”. > > My edits are in the dropbox here: > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/vw88kaarzni31q8/transition-proposal-part0-v2-formatted-pw.docx?dl=0 > > Paul. > > > On 9 Oct 2015, at 8:26, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Thanks. I know we did not get to discuss Part 0 on the call today, but I’ve been assuming folks are mostly fine with the text given that it’s been circulated on the list for awhile and I haven’t seen many comments. I will incorporate the actions from today’s call and circulate a complete redline in advance of people traveling to Dublin. >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: >>> >>> For what it is worth, my first read of this indicates that the text is >>> in good shape; I didn’t have any specific suggestions at this stage. >>> >>> Overall, there might be a thing or two to lift up from part 0 to >>> the executive summary once we are done. (E.g.,the part about >>> dependencies to CCWG work.) I also wonder if this is something >>> that should lead to writing the “E. ICG Recommendation” text >>> slightly differently. >>> >>> Jari >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mundy at tislabs.com Fri Oct 9 18:57:36 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: <39B294B3-9D56-4AAF-AB2E-5EA8610D3039@cooperw.in> References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6BEC9@ACCAN01.accan.local> <39B294B3-9D56-4AAF-AB2E-5EA8610D3039@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Narelle, Alissa, Milton, I think that we previously ended up using the phrase “written agreement” instead “contract” since it seemed inappropriate for the ICG to specify a particular type of “written agreement”. I think that the primary characteristic is that the roles and responsibilities for each of the parties (IFO & RZM) be mutually agreed to (in some written form) by both of the parties. A contract might be what they would use but it could be some other form of mutually acceptable agreement. I’m fine with Alissa’s latest working but if we think that an example would help, we could add an "e.g., a contract,” after “written agreement” in the last sentence. RussM On Oct 9, 2015, at 1:15 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi Narelle, > > I meant the contract needs to be in place. I thought this was the point Russ made on the call. > > Alissa > >> On Oct 8, 2015, at 10:04 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: >> >> Alissa >> You have: >> “and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.” >> >> Do you mean “the written agreement” [ie a contract be in place] or “a document outlining the roles, and therefore the principles, for any future agreement between the IFO and RZM be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.” >> >> >> Narelle >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 10:44 AM >> To: Mueller, Milton L >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM >> >> Hi Milton, >> >> On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> Responding to Alissa’s request for specific “what to do” proposals, >> Having thought as hard as I could about the RZM issue in the short time we have, I see one additional clarification question that can be asked (see #2 below). But on the "written agreement" issue unfortunately i see no viable option but to tell the CWG it has more work to do (#1). >> >> 1. I would propose that we say to CWG: >> >> As the proposal developer for the names OC, CWG must provide ICG and the NTIA with a proposal regarding the arrangements that will ensure that PTI's root zone changes will be implemented by the RZM. This proposal must be able to provide sufficient guidance to the NTIA's "separate and parallel process" that will modify the Verisign Cooperative Agreement. While this proposal need not be as detailed as the proposal regarding the PTI's relationship to ICANN, it should at least a) define and describe the roles and responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM; b) specify when the selection of Verisign as RZM would be reviewed or rebid; and c) codify the current preference that ICANN, IFO, and RZM be separate entities. >> >> Hmmm. I think we have a pretty clear message from the CWG that they do not want to do this, at least for (a) and (b). I don’t think we can make them do it. >> >> However, I think we can build on the text you wrote already in part 0 and make it clear what the requirements are for this before the transition can be completed. Here is my suggested addition to para 84: >> >> OLD >> In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. In response to these concerns, the ICG took the following actions: (1) asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer; and (2) asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements. >> >> NEW >> In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed and the CWG-Stewardship expects this to be subject subject to a separate and parallel process. The ICG believes that this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. >> >> >> >> 2. The ICG is concerned about a possible gap in the accountability arrangements regarding a change in the separate entities currently providing IFO and RZM. The CWG proposal says that any change must involve a public comment period, approval by a Standing Review Committee and the ICANN board. However, will the ICANN board appoint the Standing Review Committee? >> >> Based on para 1155 (2) and the use of the word “delegates," it doesn’t seem like the board appoints the committee. I have been assuming that the communities referenced appoint their own representatives, and I think that has been the assumption of at least some of those communities as well. I would have to dig back from the CWG comments but I thought the IAB even said something to that effect. >> >> >> And what would stop the ICANN board from disregarding public comments if it chose to? >> >> Isn’t this what the ICANN accountability mechanisms are for? >> >> Alissa >> >> >> >> Dr. Milton L. Mueller >> Professor, School of Public Policy >> Georgia Institute of Technology >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Fri Oct 9 22:00:03 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 22:00:03 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment In-Reply-To: References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Paul > 1. There is high risk associated with CCWG proposal because it offers a > substantially different Governance structure. It cannot be proved safe (as > Milton said), which is exactly the problem when it is so far removed from the I really have to object to the way you are representing what I said. This business about the CCWG proposal being "untested" and ICANN being "tested" is the worst argument I have heard in ICANN in a long time, and that's saying a lot. ICANN minus NTIA has not been tested. Verisign as RZM without NTIA has not been tested. What HAS been tested and proved multiple times are the numerous accountability problems and outright abuses that have occurred in ICANN's policy process even with NTIA oversight. ICANN without sufficient accountability reforms will not get through the US Congress approval process. What we are seeing now is a board that is used to having all the power revolt in panic at the idea that it really has to become accountable to its community. It's as simple as that. Yes, the CCWG plan can be improved and there are some issues even I have with it, but those problems can be and would have been fixed had the board not panicked. Now the Chair of ICANN's board is telling the community "take it or leave it" to a proposal that they concocted unilaterally. A consensual solution is seriously threatened at this point, and that can not only scuttle the transition but have long term consequences for the credibility and legitimacy of IG institutions. > -----Original Message----- > current structure. And it seems that time has run out to achieve agreement > among the CCWG, let alone with others who need to be convinced. > > 2. On the other hand ICANN’s current model IS tested, by way of 15 years of > operations. This was surely not an entire waste of time! If, based on that > experience, the community can identify a set of changes to improve it in > reliable ways, specifically by providing (for the first > time?) properly enforceable accountability mechanisms, then that is surely > worth considering as a less risky option, and maybe the only achievable > option now. > > 3. There are quite a few risks as Milton said, but the risk of (un)acceptability of > the final model is perfectly real and must be addressed objectively. I don’t > think this can be characterised as “cynical”. > > 4. Much about the “sole membership” structure is yet to be determined, but > cannot be determined in the time available. For this reason it is not necessary > to be for or against it; but rather to ensure that a discussion and decision > about this development can take place in the future, and be enforceable if and > when that happens. > > 5. This is not about the board, and it is not only about explain/understanding > it; it is about agreeing on a workable plan which can be understood by all > concerned, and also being able to implement it in the time available. > > The board has stated clearly that they do not oppose the Single Member > model per se. Unless someone wants to question them on some > demonstrated contradiction, isn’t it better that we accept their assurance, and > hold them to it later? > > As I said last night I think we do have a role and responsibility here. > We at the ICG should be able to discuss this in an objective and sincere way. > Unless we are happy to see the work we have done go down the drain, I really > think we should get moving. > > Paul. > > > > > On 9 Oct 2015, at 7:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > > I think Keith's summary is an accurate summary of the board's > > position, but I would add the following caveats: > > > > 1. It's a tragedy that what we are getting and discussing at this time > > is the board's position only, instead of a comprehensive analysis of > > the public comments as a whole. The board is but one organization out > > of nearly 100 who commented. > > > > 2. Many of the board positions are obviously without merit, e.g.: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is > >> new, untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited > >> time available to meet the September 2016 date. > > > > This argument asks one to prove a negative (X will not be captured). > > Can't be done. > > > >> -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body > >> is potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to > >> sell as not introducing risk at a delicate time. > > > > California Nonprofit public benefit corps are assumed to have members. > > What is "untested" is a Cal nonprofit WITHOUT either members or NTIA > > oversight > > > > The risk argument is especially cynical. What could be riskier than > > inadequate community empowerment mechanisms over an ICANN that has > no > > USG oversight? > > > >> -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a > >> commensurate level of accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do > >> not have sufficient accountability at this time. > > > > Facepalm. All of the representatives in the SOs are elected, unlike > > ICANN's board, and membership in these entities is open subject to > > reasonable and accountable eligibility requirements. > > > >> -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside > >> and from within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards > >> is problematic. > > > > There are all kinds of safeguards; requirements for supermajorities, > > an independent review process; this is just ICANN legal fearing it > > will lose control > > > >> -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not > >> balanced if it doesn't include all community members, and two groups > >> (SSAC and > >> RSSAC) > >> have said they want to remain advisory. > > > > And they should remain advisory. ACs are not policy making entities, > > they are appointed by the board, and their composition overlaps with > > the SOs significantly. > > > >> -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a > >> voting structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model. > > > > The level of hypocrisy in this one is so great I am unable to respond > > in language that would be suitable for a public forum > > > >> -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to > >> explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes > >> that are more easily implemented and understood. > > > > I think the board understands the proposal all too well. They see a > > loss of power, and are resisting it to the death, full stop. > > > >> -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring > >> will suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky > >> message going into the transition. > > > > ROFL. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _________________________________________________________________ > _______ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Fri Oct 9 22:05:30 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 22:05:30 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment In-Reply-To: <56176F91.8010409@ripe.net> References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <56176F91.8010409@ripe.net> Message-ID: Off list. Frankly, Daniel, I discount your opinion on the ICANN accountability process entirely. Neither of you have to live with the consequences of an unaccountable ICANN. It doesn't affect the policies the RIRs live under and you have full contractual accountability for the IANA functions (i.e. you can opt out if you please). I would encourage you to refrain from offering opinions that are designed to truncate the reform process so that you can withdraw to your own little world safely. There is nothing realistic or pragmatic about what you are saying here, if indeed you actually understand the consequences of what you are saying (which I doubt) you are indeed cynical and even dishonest. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 3:41 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed > Model -- My Assessment > > Paul, > > No you are not cynical, just much too realistic and pragmatic for many. > By and large you say what I see: changing the engines and the flight crew > while in flight is not good operating practice and the flight crew is fully > justified to resist it. I believe them when they say that they will consider better > engines when safely on the ground. > > Daniel > > On 9.10.15 7:19 , Paul Wilson wrote: > > Hi Keith, Milton et al, > > > > I said last night that the ICG should engage somehow in the CCWG > > discussion, so I’m happy to see this and to provide some comments on > > this thread. > > > > 1. There is high risk associated with CCWG proposal because it offers > > a substantially different Governance structure. It cannot be proved > > safe (as Milton said), which is exactly the problem when it is so far > > removed from the current structure. And it seems that time has run > > out to achieve agreement among the CCWG, let alone with others who > > need to be convinced. > > > > 2. On the other hand ICANN’s current model IS tested, by way of 15 > > years of operations. This was surely not an entire waste of time! > > If, based on that experience, the community can identify a set of > > changes to improve it in reliable ways, specifically by providing (for > > the first > > time?) properly enforceable accountability mechanisms, then that is > > surely worth considering as a less risky option, and maybe the only > > achievable option now. > > > > 3. There are quite a few risks as Milton said, but the risk of > > (un)acceptability of the final model is perfectly real and must be > > addressed objectively. I don’t think this can be characterised as > > “cynical”. > > > > 4. Much about the “sole membership” structure is yet to be determined, > > but cannot be determined in the time available. For this reason it is > > not necessary to be for or against it; but rather to ensure that a > > discussion and decision about this development can take place in the > > future, and be enforceable if and when that happens. > > > > 5. This is not about the board, and it is not only about > > explain/understanding it; it is about agreeing on a workable plan > > which can be understood by all concerned, and also being able to > > implement it in the time available. > > > > The board has stated clearly that they do not oppose the Single Member > > model per se. Unless someone wants to question them on some > > demonstrated contradiction, isn’t it better that we accept their > > assurance, and hold them to it later? > > > > As I said last night I think we do have a role and responsibility here. > > We at the ICG should be able to discuss this in an objective and > > sincere way. Unless we are happy to see the work we have done go down > > the drain, I really think we should get moving. > > > > Paul. > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Oct 2015, at 7:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > > >> I think Keith's summary is an accurate summary of the board's > >> position, but I would add the following caveats: > >> > >> 1. It's a tragedy that what we are getting and discussing at this > >> time is the board's position only, instead of a comprehensive > >> analysis of the public comments as a whole. The board is but one > >> organization out of nearly 100 who commented. > >> > >> 2. Many of the board positions are obviously without merit, e.g.: > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is > >>> new, untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited > >>> time available to meet the September 2016 date. > >> > >> This argument asks one to prove a negative (X will not be captured). > >> Can't be done. > >> > >>> -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body > >>> is potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to > >>> sell as not introducing risk at a delicate time. > >> > >> California Nonprofit public benefit corps are assumed to have members. > >> What is "untested" is a Cal nonprofit WITHOUT either members or NTIA > >> oversight > >> > >> The risk argument is especially cynical. What could be riskier than > >> inadequate community empowerment mechanisms over an ICANN that > has no > >> USG oversight? > >> > >>> -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a > >>> commensurate level of accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do > >>> not have sufficient accountability at this time. > >> > >> Facepalm. All of the representatives in the SOs are elected, unlike > >> ICANN's board, and membership in these entities is open subject to > >> reasonable and accountable eligibility requirements. > >> > >>> -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside > >>> and from within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards > >>> is problematic. > >> > >> There are all kinds of safeguards; requirements for supermajorities, > >> an independent review process; this is just ICANN legal fearing it > >> will lose control > >> > >>> -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not > >>> balanced if it doesn't include all community members, and two groups > >>> (SSAC and RSSAC) have said they want to remain advisory. > >> > >> And they should remain advisory. ACs are not policy making entities, > >> they are appointed by the board, and their composition overlaps with > >> the SOs significantly. > >> > >>> -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a > >>> voting structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model. > >> > >> The level of hypocrisy in this one is so great I am unable to respond > >> in language that would be suitable for a public forum > >> > >>> -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to > >>> explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes > >>> that are more easily implemented and understood. > >> > >> I think the board understands the proposal all too well. They see a > >> loss of power, and are resisting it to the death, full stop. > >> > >>> -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring > >>> will suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky > >>> message going into the transition. > >> > >> ROFL. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > _______ > > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Oct 9 22:38:22 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:38:22 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Updated transition proposal Message-ID: Based on the responses to the questions we posed to the OCs and our discussion on the call yesterday, I’ve made the associated changes to the proposal text, part 0 and part 1. I also did a bit of an editing pass, incorporated the edits from Paul (with slight tweaks for consistency in some cases), incorporated a pared-down version of the implementation list from Lynn, and tried to have the executive summary reflect the updates. I’ve also highlighted in yellow all the places where we talk about the CCWG dependency. Once we finalize the rest of the text those will be the only bits we may need to edit in the future once the CCWG work wraps up. There is one outstanding substantive issue relating to the RZM text in paras 85-88. For now I incorporated into Milton’s text the text I had suggested on the list, but we need to make sure that is what we want to say or say something else (or wait and follow up with some other entity), and we need to figure out a resolution to the issue about the separation of the IFO and RZM roles. I did not put in anything about “how the OCs collaborate” as Lynn said work was ongoing on that. Please have a look at this version and send feedback to the list if you have any. Thanks, Alissa Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x2nbnucfpo257kj/IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx?dl=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 951665 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Sat Oct 10 01:48:55 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:48:55 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment In-Reply-To: References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <110A2F30-B9C7-46EF-9E05-1E171D9F6260@apnic.net> Hi Milton, It honestly seemed to me that you were agreeing with Keith, in saying that we cannot prove that the new ICANN will not be captured. Which led me to suggest that the risk of the unknown will increase with the number of unknowns. Better the devil we know. But please, before you jump on that, note my second point. I did not and do not suggest for a moment that we can try to proceed “without sufficient accountability reforms”. Thanks, Paul. On 10 Oct 2015, at 8:00, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Paul > >> 1. There is high risk associated with CCWG proposal because it offers >> a >> substantially different Governance structure. It cannot be proved >> safe (as >> Milton said), which is exactly the problem when it is so far removed >> from the > > I really have to object to the way you are representing what I said. > This business about the CCWG proposal being "untested" and ICANN being > "tested" is the worst argument I have heard in ICANN in a long time, > and that's saying a lot. > > ICANN minus NTIA has not been tested. Verisign as RZM without NTIA has > not been tested. > > What HAS been tested and proved multiple times are the numerous > accountability problems and outright abuses that have occurred in > ICANN's policy process even with NTIA oversight. ICANN without > sufficient accountability reforms will not get through the US Congress > approval process. > > What we are seeing now is a board that is used to having all the power > revolt in panic at the idea that it really has to become accountable > to its community. It's as simple as that. Yes, the CCWG plan can be > improved and there are some issues even I have with it, but those > problems can be and would have been fixed had the board not panicked. > Now the Chair of ICANN's board is telling the community "take it or > leave it" to a proposal that they concocted unilaterally. A consensual > solution is seriously threatened at this point, and that can not only > scuttle the transition but have long term consequences for the > credibility and legitimacy of IG institutions. > >> -----Original Message----- >> current structure. And it seems that time has run out to achieve >> agreement >> among the CCWG, let alone with others who need to be convinced. >> >> 2. On the other hand ICANN’s current model IS tested, by way of 15 >> years of >> operations. This was surely not an entire waste of time! If, based >> on that >> experience, the community can identify a set of changes to improve it >> in >> reliable ways, specifically by providing (for the first >> time?) properly enforceable accountability mechanisms, then that is >> surely >> worth considering as a less risky option, and maybe the only >> achievable >> option now. >> >> 3. There are quite a few risks as Milton said, but the risk of >> (un)acceptability of >> the final model is perfectly real and must be addressed objectively. >> I don’t >> think this can be characterised as “cynical”. >> >> 4. Much about the “sole membership” structure is yet to be >> determined, but >> cannot be determined in the time available. For this reason it is not >> necessary >> to be for or against it; but rather to ensure that a discussion and >> decision >> about this development can take place in the future, and be >> enforceable if and >> when that happens. >> >> 5. This is not about the board, and it is not only about >> explain/understanding >> it; it is about agreeing on a workable plan which can be understood >> by all >> concerned, and also being able to implement it in the time available. >> >> The board has stated clearly that they do not oppose the Single >> Member >> model per se. Unless someone wants to question them on some >> demonstrated contradiction, isn’t it better that we accept their >> assurance, and >> hold them to it later? >> >> As I said last night I think we do have a role and responsibility >> here. >> We at the ICG should be able to discuss this in an objective and >> sincere way. >> Unless we are happy to see the work we have done go down the drain, I >> really >> think we should get moving. >> >> Paul. >> >> >> >> >> On 9 Oct 2015, at 7:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >>> I think Keith's summary is an accurate summary of the board's >>> position, but I would add the following caveats: >>> >>> 1. It's a tragedy that what we are getting and discussing at this >>> time >>> is the board's position only, instead of a comprehensive analysis of >>> the public comments as a whole. The board is but one organization >>> out >>> of nearly 100 who commented. >>> >>> 2. Many of the board positions are obviously without merit, e.g.: >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, >>>> is >>>> new, untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the >>>> limited >>>> time available to meet the September 2016 date. >>> >>> This argument asks one to prove a negative (X will not be captured). >>> Can't be done. >>> >>>> -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body >>>> is potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to >>>> sell as not introducing risk at a delicate time. >>> >>> California Nonprofit public benefit corps are assumed to have >>> members. >>> What is "untested" is a Cal nonprofit WITHOUT either members or NTIA >>> oversight >>> >>> The risk argument is especially cynical. What could be riskier than >>> inadequate community empowerment mechanisms over an ICANN that has >> no >>> USG oversight? >>> >>>> -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a >>>> commensurate level of accountability, and the current SOs and ACs >>>> do >>>> not have sufficient accountability at this time. >>> >>> Facepalm. All of the representatives in the SOs are elected, unlike >>> ICANN's board, and membership in these entities is open subject to >>> reasonable and accountable eligibility requirements. >>> >>>> -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside >>>> and from within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear >>>> safeguards >>>> is problematic. >>> >>> There are all kinds of safeguards; requirements for supermajorities, >>> an independent review process; this is just ICANN legal fearing it >>> will lose control >>> >>>> -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not >>>> balanced if it doesn't include all community members, and two >>>> groups >>>> (SSAC and >>>> RSSAC) >>>> have said they want to remain advisory. >>> >>> And they should remain advisory. ACs are not policy making entities, >>> they are appointed by the board, and their composition overlaps with >>> the SOs significantly. >>> >>>> -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a >>>> voting structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder >>>> model. >>> >>> The level of hypocrisy in this one is so great I am unable to >>> respond >>> in language that would be suitable for a public forum >>> >>>> -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to >>>> explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes >>>> that are more easily implemented and understood. >>> >>> I think the board understands the proposal all too well. They see a >>> loss of power, and are resisting it to the death, full stop. >>> >>>> -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance >>>> restructuring >>>> will suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky >>>> message going into the transition. >>> >>> ROFL. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> _______ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC >> dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net >> @apnicdg ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From pwilson at apnic.net Sat Oct 10 02:12:26 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:12:26 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 v2 In-Reply-To: <0BC42ABD-9E3C-4C83-B9DB-4C7ECBCA368B@cooperw.in> References: <07ab01d101e6$5c0a4da0$141ee8e0$@icgsec.asia> <335D30FC-0429-4FFC-B890-06817E8C2B26@piuha.net> <338503D7-2A8A-4CE4-857D-3C94D200B2C8@cooperw.in> <11B63ECA-ABC9-48B3-93DB-F59C86D33248@apnic.net> <0BC42ABD-9E3C-4C83-B9DB-4C7ECBCA368B@cooperw.in> Message-ID: All good for me, thanks Alissa. On 10 Oct 2015, at 4:46, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Thanks. I have some questions and comments on some of your edits. > > Footnote 14: seeing as the numbers proposal and the other two > proposals are included verbatim in the document, I think it’s > confusing to cite the version hosted at nro.net . We > do not have similar footnotes for the other two proposals. So I’d > prefer to leave this out. > > Para 13: I think the point about coordination is a good addition, but > I’m not sure it belongs in the summary of the proposal. I’d like > to move it down into the interoperability section. > > Thanks, > Alissa > >> On Oct 8, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: >> >> Agree with Jari - I think the text is in good shape. >> >> All the same I’ve added a few small refinements to the numbers >> community parts. I’ve also added a bunch of new footnotes, on an >> assumption of “the more the better”. >> >> My edits are in the dropbox here: >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/vw88kaarzni31q8/transition-proposal-part0-v2-formatted-pw.docx?dl=0 >> >> Paul. >> >> >> On 9 Oct 2015, at 8:26, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> Thanks. I know we did not get to discuss Part 0 on the call today, >>> but I’ve been assuming folks are mostly fine with the text given >>> that it’s been circulated on the list for awhile and I haven’t >>> seen many comments. I will incorporate the actions from today’s >>> call and circulate a complete redline in advance of people traveling >>> to Dublin. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Jari Arkko >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> For what it is worth, my first read of this indicates that the text >>>> is >>>> in good shape; I didn’t have any specific suggestions at this >>>> stage. >>>> >>>> Overall, there might be a thing or two to lift up from part 0 to >>>> the executive summary once we are done. (E.g.,the part about >>>> dependencies to CCWG work.) I also wonder if this is something >>>> that should lead to writing the “E. ICG Recommendation” text >>>> slightly differently. >>>> >>>> Jari >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC >> dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net >> @apnicdg ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From jen at icgsec.asia Sat Oct 10 04:10:42 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 00:10:42 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public announcement re IANA Stewardship Transition Engagement Session Message-ID: <001f01d10311$a409fb60$ec1df220$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, A public announcement has been posted on the ICG web site and social media accounts re the IANA Stewardship Transition Engagement Session on Monday 19 October. Time: 12:00-13:00 (IST) Venue: Auditorium, The Convention Centre, Dublin. Web site: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-iana-stewardship-transition-engagement-session-at -icann-54-dublin/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/652696403454631936 FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1706090599619572 Please feel free to share with your communities! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel at karrenberg.net Sat Oct 10 07:12:05 2015 From: daniel at karrenberg.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:12:05 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment In-Reply-To: <110A2F30-B9C7-46EF-9E05-1E171D9F6260@apnic.net> References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <110A2F30-B9C7-46EF-9E05-1E171D9F6260@apnic.net> Message-ID: <1885AC40-437A-4469-8881-D61B0DFE5435@karrenberg.net> exactly. arrivng at sufficient accountability reforms can only happen in*incremental* steps that everyone agrees with, including the current board. both of these concepts have not been recognised in the ccwg process so far. hence my comment 'surprise surprise' when the board finally chose to engage. it is an illusion to assume that any big change in one single step will be realistic. but all this is out of scope for our, the icg, work. let's concentrate on getting our part right! once we have done that some of us may chose to join the fray in the other room(s). daniel ---------- Sent from a hand held device. > On 10.10.2015, at 03:48, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Hi Milton, > > It honestly seemed to me that you were agreeing with Keith, in saying that we cannot prove that the new ICANN will not be captured. Which led me to suggest that the risk of the unknown will increase with the number of unknowns. Better the devil we know. > > But please, before you jump on that, note my second point. I did not and do not suggest for a moment that we can try to proceed “without sufficient accountability reforms”. > > Thanks, > > Paul. > > > >> On 10 Oct 2015, at 8:00, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> Paul >> >>> 1. There is high risk associated with CCWG proposal because it offers a >>> substantially different Governance structure. It cannot be proved safe (as >>> Milton said), which is exactly the problem when it is so far removed from the >> >> I really have to object to the way you are representing what I said. This business about the CCWG proposal being "untested" and ICANN being "tested" is the worst argument I have heard in ICANN in a long time, and that's saying a lot. >> >> ICANN minus NTIA has not been tested. Verisign as RZM without NTIA has not been tested. >> >> What HAS been tested and proved multiple times are the numerous accountability problems and outright abuses that have occurred in ICANN's policy process even with NTIA oversight. ICANN without sufficient accountability reforms will not get through the US Congress approval process. >> >> What we are seeing now is a board that is used to having all the power revolt in panic at the idea that it really has to become accountable to its community. It's as simple as that. Yes, the CCWG plan can be improved and there are some issues even I have with it, but those problems can be and would have been fixed had the board not panicked. Now the Chair of ICANN's board is telling the community "take it or leave it" to a proposal that they concocted unilaterally. A consensual solution is seriously threatened at this point, and that can not only scuttle the transition but have long term consequences for the credibility and legitimacy of IG institutions. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> current structure. And it seems that time has run out to achieve agreement >>> among the CCWG, let alone with others who need to be convinced. >>> >>> 2. On the other hand ICANN’s current model IS tested, by way of 15 years of >>> operations. This was surely not an entire waste of time! If, based on that >>> experience, the community can identify a set of changes to improve it in >>> reliable ways, specifically by providing (for the first >>> time?) properly enforceable accountability mechanisms, then that is surely >>> worth considering as a less risky option, and maybe the only achievable >>> option now. >>> >>> 3. There are quite a few risks as Milton said, but the risk of (un)acceptability of >>> the final model is perfectly real and must be addressed objectively. I don’t >>> think this can be characterised as “cynical”. >>> >>> 4. Much about the “sole membership” structure is yet to be determined, but >>> cannot be determined in the time available. For this reason it is not necessary >>> to be for or against it; but rather to ensure that a discussion and decision >>> about this development can take place in the future, and be enforceable if and >>> when that happens. >>> >>> 5. This is not about the board, and it is not only about explain/understanding >>> it; it is about agreeing on a workable plan which can be understood by all >>> concerned, and also being able to implement it in the time available. >>> >>> The board has stated clearly that they do not oppose the Single Member >>> model per se. Unless someone wants to question them on some >>> demonstrated contradiction, isn’t it better that we accept their assurance, and >>> hold them to it later? >>> >>> As I said last night I think we do have a role and responsibility here. >>> We at the ICG should be able to discuss this in an objective and sincere way. >>> Unless we are happy to see the work we have done go down the drain, I really >>> think we should get moving. >>> >>> Paul. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 9 Oct 2015, at 7:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>> >>>> I think Keith's summary is an accurate summary of the board's >>>> position, but I would add the following caveats: >>>> >>>> 1. It's a tragedy that what we are getting and discussing at this time >>>> is the board's position only, instead of a comprehensive analysis of >>>> the public comments as a whole. The board is but one organization out >>>> of nearly 100 who commented. >>>> >>>> 2. Many of the board positions are obviously without merit, e.g.: >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is >>>>> new, untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited >>>>> time available to meet the September 2016 date. >>>> >>>> This argument asks one to prove a negative (X will not be captured). >>>> Can't be done. >>>> >>>>> -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body >>>>> is potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to >>>>> sell as not introducing risk at a delicate time. >>>> >>>> California Nonprofit public benefit corps are assumed to have members. >>>> What is "untested" is a Cal nonprofit WITHOUT either members or NTIA >>>> oversight >>>> >>>> The risk argument is especially cynical. What could be riskier than >>>> inadequate community empowerment mechanisms over an ICANN that has >>> no >>>> USG oversight? >>>> >>>>> -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a >>>>> commensurate level of accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do >>>>> not have sufficient accountability at this time. >>>> >>>> Facepalm. All of the representatives in the SOs are elected, unlike >>>> ICANN's board, and membership in these entities is open subject to >>>> reasonable and accountable eligibility requirements. >>>> >>>>> -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside >>>>> and from within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards >>>>> is problematic. >>>> >>>> There are all kinds of safeguards; requirements for supermajorities, >>>> an independent review process; this is just ICANN legal fearing it >>>> will lose control >>>> >>>>> -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not >>>>> balanced if it doesn't include all community members, and two groups >>>>> (SSAC and >>>>> RSSAC) >>>>> have said they want to remain advisory. >>>> >>>> And they should remain advisory. ACs are not policy making entities, >>>> they are appointed by the board, and their composition overlaps with >>>> the SOs significantly. >>>> >>>>> -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a >>>>> voting structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model. >>>> >>>> The level of hypocrisy in this one is so great I am unable to respond >>>> in language that would be suitable for a public forum >>>> >>>>> -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to >>>>> explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes >>>>> that are more easily implemented and understood. >>>> >>>> I think the board understands the proposal all too well. They see a >>>> loss of power, and are resisting it to the death, full stop. >>>> >>>>> -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring >>>>> will suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky >>>>> message going into the transition. >>>> >>>> ROFL. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> _______ >>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net >>> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Sat Oct 10 13:57:24 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:57:24 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment In-Reply-To: <110A2F30-B9C7-46EF-9E05-1E171D9F6260@apnic.net> References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <110A2F30-B9C7-46EF-9E05-1E171D9F6260@apnic.net> Message-ID: My point was that asking reformers to prove that "the new ICANN cannot be captured" creates a requirement that is not meaningful and just acts as a blanket excuse for the ICANN board's lack of accountability. Any reforms that shift power from the board to its purported community will be untested and thus will create risks. And leaving the current structures in place without NTIA is also new, also untested, also creates risks. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 9:49 PM > To: Mueller, Milton L > Cc: Drazek, Keith ; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed > Model -- My Assessment > > Hi Milton, > > It honestly seemed to me that you were agreeing with Keith, in saying that we > cannot prove that the new ICANN will not be captured. Which led me to > suggest that the risk of the unknown will increase with the number of > unknowns. Better the devil we know. > > But please, before you jump on that, note my second point. I did not and do > not suggest for a moment that we can try to proceed “without sufficient > accountability reforms”. > > Thanks, > > Paul. > > > > On 10 Oct 2015, at 8:00, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > > Paul > > > >> 1. There is high risk associated with CCWG proposal because it offers > >> a substantially different Governance structure. It cannot be proved > >> safe (as Milton said), which is exactly the problem when it is so far > >> removed from the > > > > I really have to object to the way you are representing what I said. > > This business about the CCWG proposal being "untested" and ICANN being > > "tested" is the worst argument I have heard in ICANN in a long time, > > and that's saying a lot. > > > > ICANN minus NTIA has not been tested. Verisign as RZM without NTIA has > > not been tested. > > > > What HAS been tested and proved multiple times are the numerous > > accountability problems and outright abuses that have occurred in > > ICANN's policy process even with NTIA oversight. ICANN without > > sufficient accountability reforms will not get through the US Congress > > approval process. > > > > What we are seeing now is a board that is used to having all the power > > revolt in panic at the idea that it really has to become accountable > > to its community. It's as simple as that. Yes, the CCWG plan can be > > improved and there are some issues even I have with it, but those > > problems can be and would have been fixed had the board not panicked. > > Now the Chair of ICANN's board is telling the community "take it or > > leave it" to a proposal that they concocted unilaterally. A consensual > > solution is seriously threatened at this point, and that can not only > > scuttle the transition but have long term consequences for the > > credibility and legitimacy of IG institutions. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> current structure. And it seems that time has run out to achieve > >> agreement among the CCWG, let alone with others who need to be > >> convinced. > >> > >> 2. On the other hand ICANN’s current model IS tested, by way of 15 > >> years of operations. This was surely not an entire waste of time! > >> If, based on that experience, the community can identify a set of > >> changes to improve it in reliable ways, specifically by providing > >> (for the first > >> time?) properly enforceable accountability mechanisms, then that is > >> surely worth considering as a less risky option, and maybe the only > >> achievable option now. > >> > >> 3. There are quite a few risks as Milton said, but the risk of > >> (un)acceptability of the final model is perfectly real and must be > >> addressed objectively. > >> I don’t > >> think this can be characterised as “cynical”. > >> > >> 4. Much about the “sole membership” structure is yet to be > >> determined, but cannot be determined in the time available. For this > >> reason it is not necessary to be for or against it; but rather to > >> ensure that a discussion and decision about this development can take > >> place in the future, and be enforceable if and when that happens. > >> > >> 5. This is not about the board, and it is not only about > >> explain/understanding it; it is about agreeing on a workable plan > >> which can be understood by all concerned, and also being able to > >> implement it in the time available. > >> > >> The board has stated clearly that they do not oppose the Single > >> Member model per se. Unless someone wants to question them on some > >> demonstrated contradiction, isn’t it better that we accept their > >> assurance, and hold them to it later? > >> > >> As I said last night I think we do have a role and responsibility > >> here. > >> We at the ICG should be able to discuss this in an objective and > >> sincere way. > >> Unless we are happy to see the work we have done go down the drain, I > >> really think we should get moving. > >> > >> Paul. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 9 Oct 2015, at 7:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >> > >>> I think Keith's summary is an accurate summary of the board's > >>> position, but I would add the following caveats: > >>> > >>> 1. It's a tragedy that what we are getting and discussing at this > >>> time is the board's position only, instead of a comprehensive > >>> analysis of the public comments as a whole. The board is but one > >>> organization out of nearly 100 who commented. > >>> > >>> 2. Many of the board positions are obviously without merit, e.g.: > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, > >>>> is new, untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the > >>>> limited time available to meet the September 2016 date. > >>> > >>> This argument asks one to prove a negative (X will not be captured). > >>> Can't be done. > >>> > >>>> -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body > >>>> is potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to > >>>> sell as not introducing risk at a delicate time. > >>> > >>> California Nonprofit public benefit corps are assumed to have > >>> members. > >>> What is "untested" is a Cal nonprofit WITHOUT either members or NTIA > >>> oversight > >>> > >>> The risk argument is especially cynical. What could be riskier than > >>> inadequate community empowerment mechanisms over an ICANN that > has > >> no > >>> USG oversight? > >>> > >>>> -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a > >>>> commensurate level of accountability, and the current SOs and ACs > >>>> do not have sufficient accountability at this time. > >>> > >>> Facepalm. All of the representatives in the SOs are elected, unlike > >>> ICANN's board, and membership in these entities is open subject to > >>> reasonable and accountable eligibility requirements. > >>> > >>>> -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside > >>>> and from within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear > >>>> safeguards is problematic. > >>> > >>> There are all kinds of safeguards; requirements for supermajorities, > >>> an independent review process; this is just ICANN legal fearing it > >>> will lose control > >>> > >>>> -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not > >>>> balanced if it doesn't include all community members, and two > >>>> groups (SSAC and > >>>> RSSAC) > >>>> have said they want to remain advisory. > >>> > >>> And they should remain advisory. ACs are not policy making entities, > >>> they are appointed by the board, and their composition overlaps with > >>> the SOs significantly. > >>> > >>>> -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a > >>>> voting structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder > >>>> model. > >>> > >>> The level of hypocrisy in this one is so great I am unable to > >>> respond in language that would be suitable for a public forum > >>> > >>>> -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to > >>>> explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes > >>>> that are more easily implemented and understood. > >>> > >>> I think the board understands the proposal all too well. They see a > >>> loss of power, and are resisting it to the death, full stop. > >>> > >>>> -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance > >>>> restructuring will suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a > >>>> politically risky message going into the transition. > >>> > >>> ROFL. > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> > >> > _________________________________________________________________ > >> _______ > >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > >> dg at apnic.net > >> http://www.apnic.net > >> @apnicdg > > _________________________________________________________________ > _______ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Sat Oct 10 14:05:35 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:05:35 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment In-Reply-To: <1885AC40-437A-4469-8881-D61B0DFE5435@karrenberg.net> References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <110A2F30-B9C7-46EF-9E05-1E171D9F6260@apnic.net> <1885AC40-437A-4469-8881-D61B0DFE5435@karrenberg.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > exactly. arrivng at sufficient accountability reforms can only happen > in*incremental* steps that everyone agrees with, including the current board. There are two obviously false premises here. 1. In a governance context, incrementalism creates as many, if not more problems than trying to fix the problem systematically. Reforms can be short-circuited or suspended; halfway houses can create contradictions. 2. It's absurd to give the entity that needs reform veto power over its own reform. This is like saying that racist state governments had to agree before blacks were afforded civil rights. > but all this is out of scope for our, the icg, work. > let's concentrate on getting our part right! > once we have done that some of us may chose to join the fray in the other > room(s). Sure, now that you and I are done opining, no one else should weigh in. ;-) From elise.gerich at icann.org Sun Oct 11 19:46:37 2015 From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:46:37 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public announcement re IANA Stewardship Transition Engagement Session In-Reply-To: <001f01d10311$a409fb60$ec1df220$@icgsec.asia> References: <001f01d10311$a409fb60$ec1df220$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: My regrets. Due to a family commitment, my arrival in Dublin is on Tuesday morning and I will miss this session at the ICANN meeting in Dublin. Regards, -- Elise From: Internal-cg on behalf of Jennifer Chung Date: Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 12:10 AM To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" Subject: [Internal-cg] Public announcement re IANA Stewardship Transition Engagement Session > Dear All, > > A public announcement has been posted on the ICG web site and social media > accounts re the IANA Stewardship Transition Engagement Session on Monday 19 > October. > > Time: 12:00-13:00 (IST) > Venue: Auditorium, The Convention Centre, Dublin. > > Web site: > https://www.ianacg.org/icg-iana-stewardship-transition-engagement-session-at-i > cann-54-dublin/ > Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/652696403454631936 > FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1706090599619572 > > Please feel free to share with your communities! > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5037 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Oct 12 16:17:35 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:17:35 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agendas for Dublin Message-ID: Please see attached. Note that each day’s agenda is dependent on what we get done on the previous day and what happens during the ICANN week. We will need to update the Thursday and Friday agendas as the week progresses. Please send your feedback. Thanks, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-F2F-7-agenda-v0.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 69472 bytes Desc: not available URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Mon Oct 12 20:13:08 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:13:08 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Alissa and all, sorry to respond so slowly to this As the proposal developer for the names OC, CWG must provide ICG and the NTIA with a proposal regarding the arrangements that will ensure that PTI's root zone changes will be implemented by the RZM. This proposal must be able to provide sufficient guidance to the NTIA's "separate and parallel process" that will modify the Verisign Cooperative Agreement. While this proposal need not be as detailed as the proposal regarding the PTI's relationship to ICANN, it should at least a) define and describe the roles and responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM; b) specify when the selection of Verisign as RZM would be reviewed or rebid; and c) codify the current preference that ICANN, IFO, and RZM be separate entities. Hmmm. I think we have a pretty clear message from the CWG that they do not want to do this, at least for (a) and (b). I don’t think we can make them do it. MM: I think we could, actually, if we tell them we won’t pass on the proposal to NTIA until they do. If we say their proposal is not complete, it isn’t complete, full stop. Also, I am not sure that they have definitively said they don’t want to do it. What I am hearing is, rather, a reluctance to admit that they are not finished and a fear of the delays that might be caused, and some confusion between the NTIA-Verisign parallel process that amends the CA and the need for the CWG to define and describe the roles and responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM, which is NOT something that amending the CA can do. MM: Regarding delay, I think it would take about one full working day for the CWG to decide when the selection of Verisign as RZM would be rebid (or was permanent, or whatever) and to describe what the roles would be. If it took longer than that it would indicate that substantial issues are raised which in turn is an indication that this should not be left to NTIA to decide. However, I think we can build on the text you wrote already in part 0 and make it clear what the requirements are for this before the transition can be completed. Here is my suggested addition to para 84: OLD In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. In response to these concerns, the ICG took the following actions: (1) asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer; and (2) asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements. NEW In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed and the CWG-Stewardship expects this to be subject subject to a separate and parallel process. The ICG believes that this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. MM: It is headed in the right direction, but the part I object to is the conflation of defining the _future_ IFO-RZM relationship with the NTIA’s “parallel process” revising the _current_ RZM’s cooperative agreement. I don’t see how NTIA can revise the cooperative agreement without knowing how we want the RZM to be related to the ICANN and the IFO. And I don’t agree with the idea that we let NTIA, Verisign and ICANN define that relationship by themselves. MM: It sounds like you and perhaps others on ICG don’t agree that we can ask the CWG to actually finish its work and address the “creation of an arrangement between the IFO and RZM.” I would ask everyone to express their disagreement or agreement with that option, because my first choice, as suggested above, would be to tell CWG that their proposal is not complete until their do what is asked. But if that option is not popular here, I would propose a compromise wording as follows: The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The ICG believes that defining and describing the respective roles and agreements among ICANN, PTI and the RZM post-transition should have been part of the CWG's mandate. CWG-Stewardship, on the other hand, believes it should be determined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. And what would stop the ICANN board from disregarding public comments if it chose to? Isn’t this what the ICANN accountability mechanisms are for? MM: You mean the accountability mechanisms that the board has refused to accept? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Oct 12 20:54:53 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:54:53 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <24516559-14A9-4858-9AF0-BC361F6C2A4C@cooperw.in> Thanks Milton. Responses inline. > On Oct 12, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Alissa and all, sorry to respond so slowly to this > > As the proposal developer for the names OC, CWG must provide ICG and the NTIA with a proposal regarding the arrangements that will ensure that PTI's root zone changes will be implemented by the RZM. This proposal must be able to provide sufficient guidance to the NTIA's "separate and parallel process" that will modify the Verisign Cooperative Agreement. While this proposal need not be as detailed as the proposal regarding the PTI's relationship to ICANN, it should at least a) define and describe the roles and responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM; b) specify when the selection of Verisign as RZM would be reviewed or rebid; and c) codify the current preference that ICANN, IFO, and RZM be separate entities. > > Hmmm. I think we have a pretty clear message from the CWG that they do not want to do this, at least for (a) and (b). I don’t think we can make them do it. > > MM: I think we could, actually, if we tell them we won’t pass on the proposal to NTIA until they do. If we say their proposal is not complete, it isn’t complete, full stop. Also, I am not sure that they have definitively said they don’t want to do it. What I am hearing is, rather, a reluctance to admit that they are not finished and a fear of the delays that might be caused, and some confusion between the NTIA-Verisign parallel process that amends the CA and the need for the CWG to define and describe the roles and responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM, which is NOT something that amending the CA can do. I have a couple of reactions to this. First, I agree we could go back to them if we thought the proposal is not complete. But we’ve had their proposal in front of us since June. We assessed it on its own and together with the other proposals. We put language in the proposal to make it clear that a written agreement between the IFO and the RZM is necessary before the contract expires. The details of that agreement were to be part of the implementation phase, as other details are. So what would the basis be for us to now decide that the CWG proposal is not complete? I don’t think the public comments told us anything we didn’t know before about the CWG proposal’s completeness in this regard. I think the underlying problem here is that we do not know the details about the parallel process NTIA plans to run. You say that that process is only about amending the cooperative agreement, but how can we be sure? This text is all we have about it, I think [1]: Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management), which would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities. So, a written agreement between the IFO and the RZM could be the outcome of that. I think the important thing is to make sure the CWG has input into that process, not that they need to decide its outcome in advance. > > MM: Regarding delay, I think it would take about one full working day for the CWG to decide when the selection of Verisign as RZM would be rebid (or was permanent, or whatever) and to describe what the roles would be. If it took longer than that it would indicate that substantial issues are raised which in turn is an indication that this should not be left to NTIA to decide. That may or may not be true, but even if it took five minutes it would likely involve going back out to the community and/or chartering organizations for consensus building, which would certainly require much more time for review in order to be legitimate. > > However, I think we can build on the text you wrote already in part 0 and make it clear what the requirements are for this before the transition can be completed. Here is my suggested addition to para 84: > > OLD > In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. In response to these concerns, the ICG took the following actions: (1) asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer; and (2) asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements. > > NEW > In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed and the CWG-Stewardship expects this to be subject subject to a separate and parallel process. The ICG believes that this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > MM: It is headed in the right direction, but the part I object to is the conflation of defining the _future_ IFO-RZM relationship with the NTIA’s “parallel process” revising the _current_ RZM’s cooperative agreement. I don’t see how NTIA can revise the cooperative agreement without knowing how we want the RZM to be related to the ICANN and the IFO. And I don’t agree with the idea that we let NTIA, Verisign and ICANN define that relationship by themselves. Per my note above, I thought we were talking about one process — open for input from anyone — that defines the arrangements between the RZM and the IFO going forward. > > MM: It sounds like you and perhaps others on ICG don’t agree that we can ask the CWG to actually finish its work and address the “creation of an arrangement between the IFO and RZM.” I would ask everyone to express their disagreement or agreement with that option, because my first choice, as suggested above, would be to tell CWG that their proposal is not complete until their do what is asked. Yes, I do disagree with that option. I think the CWG put this in the bucket with all of the other items that need to be completed before the contract expires, but not before we send the proposal to NTIA. The additional insight we’ve gained from the public comments tells me we need to be explicit about the need for the involvement from the names community in completing that task. But I don’t think we learned something that told us that the CWG proposal is incomplete. > But if that option is not popular here, I would propose a compromise wording as follows: > > The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The ICG believes that defining and describing the respective roles and agreements among ICANN, PTI and the RZM post-transition should have been part of the CWG's mandate. CWG-Stewardship, on the other hand, believes it should be determined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. Again here I’m not comfortable with us saying this unless we have some basis for making a new discovery about the CWG’s mandate. We wrote the RFP and we had many prior opportunities to bring this to the CWG if we thought it was necessary. > The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > And what would stop the ICANN board from disregarding public comments if it chose to? > > Isn’t this what the ICANN accountability mechanisms are for? > > MM: You mean the accountability mechanisms that the board has refused to accept? You could make that argument for all of the CCWG dependencies to which it applies. My point is that we already know the answer to this question, and we already acknowledge in six different places in the document that the dependency exists. Thanks, Alissa [1] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Mon Oct 12 21:56:58 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:56:58 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: <24516559-14A9-4858-9AF0-BC361F6C2A4C@cooperw.in> References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> <24516559-14A9-4858-9AF0-BC361F6C2A4C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: I have a couple of reactions to this. First, I agree we could go back to them if we thought the proposal is not complete. But we’ve had their proposal in front of us since June. We assessed it on its own and together with the other proposals. We put language in the proposal to make it clear that a written agreement between the IFO and the RZM is necessary before the contract expires. The details of that agreement were to be part of the implementation phase, as other details are. So what would the basis be for us to now decide that the CWG proposal is not complete? MM: Um, the fact that it’s not complete. To me, our failure to notice this before doesn’t mean that we can’t say anything about it now. I don’t think the public comments told us anything we didn’t know before about the CWG proposal’s completeness in this regard. MM: I don’t agree; indeed, I have no idea on what basis you make this claim. Can you point to any previous discussions we had about this that explicitly examined the boundaries between what NTIA was expected to do and what CWG was expected to do? I think the public comments raised a lot more concerns about the RZM arrangements than I had expected, and put a spotlight on them which made us all think harder about what exactly was missing, what was part of the NTIA process and what wasn’t. That’s why you do public comments; we are bound not to notice something so we put it out for public comment. I think the underlying problem here is that we do not know the details about the parallel process NTIA plans to run. You say that that process is only about amending the cooperative agreement, but how can we be sure? This text is all we have about it, I think [1]: Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management), which would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities. MM: the key phrase here is “a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities” and based on my understanding of English “these responsibilities” refers back quite clearly to the RZM responsibilities _in the Verisign CA_. Heck, we also know that getting the NTIA out of root zone approval authority – which is PART OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT – has been addressed by the CWG, not by a parallel, NTIA-driven process, so there is precedent for the fact that CWG can do things that touch on RZM but everyone recognizes can only be implemented by the NTIA. So, a written agreement between the IFO and the RZM could be the outcome of that. I think the important thing is to make sure the CWG has input into that process, not that they need to decide its outcome in advance. [snip] Per my note above, I thought we were talking about one process — open for input from anyone — that defines the arrangements between the RZM and the IFO going forward. MM: So we’ve gone from “the CWG has input” to “open for input from anyone…” Good. Yes, I do disagree with that option. I think the CWG put this in the bucket with all of the other items that need to be completed before the contract expires, but not before we send the proposal to NTIA. The additional insight we’ve gained from the public comments tells me we need to be explicit about the need for the involvement from the names community in completing that task. But I don’t think we learned something that told us that the CWG proposal is incomplete. MM: As noted before, I disagree with your last statement. But more important, the defining characteristic of the separate and parallel process is that it is NOT open for input from anyone. If we get that openness, most of my concerns are assuaged. But I think it odd that you think we cannot tell the CWG what to do but we can tell the NTIA what to do. I.e., we can suddenly tell NTIA that its process must be open and transparent and subject to the approval of the CWG? Fine with me. Good luck with that. The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The ICG believes that defining and describing the respective roles and agreements among ICANN, PTI and the RZM post-transition should have been part of the CWG's mandate. CWG-Stewardship, on the other hand, believes it should be determined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. Again here I’m not comfortable with us saying this unless we have some basis for making a new discovery about the CWG’s mandate. We wrote the RFP and we had many prior opportunities to bring this to the CWG if we thought it was necessary. MM: So the fact that we missed it the first time around means that we pretend it’s not an issue now? I don’t get that. But here is a way to modify the language (which works as long as the second part remains): The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The CWG now prefers to let those relationships be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. MM: So you are ok with this second part? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Tue Oct 13 01:44:31 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:44:31 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> <24516559-14A9-4858-9AF0-BC361F6C2A4C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <51474E76-B725-4755-9365-D94F5EF9D569@oracle.com> at the meeting in LA there was a review of our mandate which led us to believe that an inquiry into the RZM was appropriate and not out of scope. That was an inflection point to our analysis. The question is whether the RZM should be listed as a dependency that will be solved outside of CWG but which will impact the transition? Do we also pass on the concerns of lack of transparency and consultation? Those have been elements we have found essential to meeting NTIA requirements for the rest of the transition? Joe Sent from my iPad > On Oct 12, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > I have a couple of reactions to this. First, I agree we could go back to them if we thought the proposal is not complete. But we’ve had their proposal in front of us since June. We assessed it on its own and together with the other proposals. We put language in the proposal to make it clear that a written agreement between the IFO and the RZM is necessary before the contract expires. The details of that agreement were to be part of the implementation phase, as other details are. So what would the basis be for us to now decide that the CWG proposal is not complete? > > MM: Um, the fact that it’s not complete. To me, our failure to notice this before doesn’t mean that we can’t say anything about it now. > > I don’t think the public comments told us anything we didn’t know before about the CWG proposal’s completeness in this regard. > > MM: I don’t agree; indeed, I have no idea on what basis you make this claim. Can you point to any previous discussions we had about this that explicitly examined the boundaries between what NTIA was expected to do and what CWG was expected to do? I think the public comments raised a lot more concerns about the RZM arrangements than I had expected, and put a spotlight on them which made us all think harder about what exactly was missing, what was part of the NTIA process and what wasn’t. That’s why you do public comments; we are bound not to notice something so we put it out for public comment. > > I think the underlying problem here is that we do not know the details about the parallel process NTIA plans to run. You say that that process is only about amending the cooperative agreement, but how can we be sure? This text is all we have about it, I think [1]: > Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management), which would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities. > > MM: the key phrase here is “a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities” and based on my understanding of English “these responsibilities” refers back quite clearly to the RZM responsibilities _in the Verisign CA_. Heck, we also know that getting the NTIA out of root zone approval authority – which is PART OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT – has been addressed by the CWG, not by a parallel, NTIA-driven process, so there is precedent for the fact that CWG can do things that touch on RZM but everyone recognizes can only be implemented by the NTIA. > > So, a written agreement between the IFO and the RZM could be the outcome of that. I think the important thing is to make sure the CWG has input into that process, not that they need to decide its outcome in advance. > > [snip] > > Per my note above, I thought we were talking about one process — open for input from anyone — that defines the arrangements between the RZM and the IFO going forward. > > MM: So we’ve gone from “the CWG has input” to “open for input from anyone…” Good. > > Yes, I do disagree with that option. I think the CWG put this in the bucket with all of the other items that need to be completed before the contract expires, but not before we send the proposal to NTIA. The additional insight we’ve gained from the public comments tells me we need to be explicit about the need for the involvement from the names community in completing that task. But I don’t think we learned something that told us that the CWG proposal is incomplete. > > MM: As noted before, I disagree with your last statement. But more important, the defining characteristic of the separate and parallel process is that it is NOT open for input from anyone. If we get that openness, most of my concerns are assuaged. But I think it odd that you think we cannot tell the CWG what to do but we can tell the NTIA what to do. I.e., we can suddenly tell NTIA that its process must be open and transparent and subject to the approval of the CWG? Fine with me. Good luck with that. > > The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The ICG believes that defining and describing the respective roles and agreements among ICANN, PTI and the RZM post-transition should have been part of the CWG's mandate. CWG-Stewardship, on the other hand, believes it should be determined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. > > Again here I’m not comfortable with us saying this unless we have some basis for making a new discovery about the CWG’s mandate. We wrote the RFP and we had many prior opportunities to bring this to the CWG if we thought it was necessary. > > MM: So the fact that we missed it the first time around means that we pretend it’s not an issue now? I don’t get that. But here is a way to modify the language (which works as long as the second part remains): > > The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The CWG now prefers to let those relationships be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. > > > The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > MM: So you are ok with this second part? > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel at karrenberg.net Tue Oct 13 15:23:41 2015 From: daniel at karrenberg.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:23:41 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment In-Reply-To: References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499772EB@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <110A2F30-B9C7-46EF-9E05-1E171D9F6260@apnic.net> <1885AC40-437A-4469-8881-D61B0DFE5435@karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <561D21FD.9080306@karrenberg.net> [message contains solely opining irrelevant to ICG work] Milton, the board actually has power over changes to ICANN's bylaws. The board does not need to "be given" those powers. That is the status quo. Let us not get into whether this is absurd or not. Last time I checked CCWG was about evolving ICANN and not about replacing it. If one wants to change a corporation, that corporation has to agree and that means in this case that the board has to agree. I offered incremental steps, with all their drawbacks, as a possible way to overcome the "untested" and "too great a change" reactions. In my experience they are a useful vehicle in situations where the direction has general support but a single step change does not have sufficient support. I fail to see how the civil rights analogy fits the matter under discussion. Wasn't that about different tiers of government, subsidiarity and all that? ;-) I have to admit my knowledge about that history is from afar and I last studied it in high school. Revolution is something different again: set up a new corporation and take over ICANN's business/functions. I have not seen significant support for that recently. ;-) I am afraid civil war is not an option either if we want to keep a unified name space. :-) :-) :-) To summarise: accountability changes can only happen with the board and not against it as long as we want to keep ICANN as such around. Daniel On 10.10.15 16:05 , Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> exactly. arrivng at sufficient accountability reforms can only happen >> in*incremental* steps that everyone agrees with, including the current board. > > There are two obviously false premises here. > > 1. In a governance context, incrementalism creates as many, if not more problems than trying to fix the problem systematically. Reforms can be short-circuited or suspended; halfway houses can create contradictions. > > 2. It's absurd to give the entity that needs reform veto power over its own reform. This is like saying that racist state governments had to agree before blacks were afforded civil rights. > >> but all this is out of scope for our, the icg, work. >> let's concentrate on getting our part right! >> once we have done that some of us may chose to join the fray in the other >> room(s). > > Sure, now that you and I are done opining, no one else should weigh in. ;-) > From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Oct 13 16:10:38 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:10:38 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft slides for Monday engagement session Message-ID: <8F8CCD44-736B-461A-8152-67B6EFF6779E@cooperw.in> Feedback is appreciated on these. Slide 7 and 8 are TBD depending how discussion continues on the list this week and in our meetings on the weekend. Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-ICANN54-v1.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 333583 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Oct 13 16:11:40 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:11:40 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: <423A6FCB-0813-4F20-B458-59FA002F922B@LStAmour.org> References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org> <64D5CDB6F8E0453384F94A07EB03FED2@WUKPC> <48EEE20B-6656-47F2-A56A-50EC7C322B7D@frobbit.se> <8FC941B0-ACB0-48DA-A11F-AAA6BB8D9B94@cooperw.in> <50C47772-2958-4FBB-A5BC-2B88B9B11F7C@frobbit.se> <560FAFBD.6010102@oracle.com> <56112544.6040703@oracle.com> <9C685CB8-F933-4C76-8476-FAA04D90E271@gmail.com> <423A6FCB-0813-4F20-B458-59FA002F922B@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: Is there an update on this? Do we have agreed text to insert into the document, or are we putting this to the side? Thanks, Alissa > On Oct 8, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > First, we'd like to thank all the ICG members for their very helpful comments. > > And, we are now pulling this back up to the top of the pile, noting that it has not yet been incorporated into Part 0. The WG needs a bit more time to complete it. > > Lynn > > > On Oct 4, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > >> Patrik >> I agree with you, I suggest the the broad lines os collaboration among various OCs to be summarized and included in the final report together with the example that you did provide >> BR >> Kavouss >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 4 Oct 2015, at 15:10, joseph alhadeff wrote: >>> >>> good example of needs-generated dynamic cooperative process... >>> >>>> On 10/3/2015 7:00 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>> The explicit examples that exists are very few. My favourite example involves the IP addresses. >>>> >>>> IETF set the over all policy for IP addresses. Some blocks are to be used for routing on the Internet. IANA keep track of this over arching allocation. RIRs then sets the detailed policy for those subsets of the addresses. When RIRs later request addresses from IANA, IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA zones (and whois) are updated accordingly, i.e. managed by IANA, although ARPA TLD is managed by IAB. >>>> >>>> So, IETF set the over arching policy, RIRs set the detailed policy. IANA is coordinating and keeps track of all of this. >>>> >>>> Patrik >>>> >>>>> On 3 Oct 2015, at 12:36, joseph alhadeff wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Patrik: >>>>> >>>>> I don't think there's a real issue with keeping the OC descriptions/historical function as long as we provide the needed examples of cooperation and consultation across different scenarios. The mere statement that the concept of cooperation exists is not sufficient to make the needed point that collaboration and cooperation are context specific/as needed or provide the kind of assurance that will address the misplaced desire to develop or impose a specific mechanism for collaboration and cooperation. >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/3/2015 2:57 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>> On 3 Oct 2015, at 1:42, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The fact that the bodies that establish registry policies can also choose which operator will run the registry is interesting, but it’s a bit of a subtle point and I think it may be complicated to explain without adding a lot of additional clarifying value. >>>>>> Hmm...let me just ensure my point is made clear here. >>>>>> >>>>>> As each registry is decided upon by the OC defining it, and not the OCs as a collective, collaboration is explicitly needed. They must explicitly reach out to the other OCs and collaborate with them. >>>>>> >>>>>> That was my point. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patrik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Oct 13 16:35:22 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:35:22 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> <24516559-14A9-4858-9AF0-BC361F6C2A4C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <5EB70CA8-881C-4748-A4DA-2EECD790330E@cooperw.in> Hi Milton, Jumping down to the text proposal: > On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The CWG now prefers to let those relationships be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. > > > The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > MM: So you are ok with this second part? Yes, almost. I think in the first two sentences we need to stick a little more closely to what we actually received in the CWG response: The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal or elsewhere. The CWG understands that those relationships will be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. Does this work for you? Thanks, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Tue Oct 13 19:00:19 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:00:19 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: <5EB70CA8-881C-4748-A4DA-2EECD790330E@cooperw.in> References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> <24516559-14A9-4858-9AF0-BC361F6C2A4C@cooperw.in> <5EB70CA8-881C-4748-A4DA-2EECD790330E@cooperw.in> Message-ID: I still have trouble with this: The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal It’s not that there are no details, it’s that there is no sketch of the architecture or requirements for the arrangement at all. So I think my original sentence is more accurate: The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:35 PM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM Hi Milton, Jumping down to the text proposal: On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The CWG now prefers to let those relationships be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. MM: So you are ok with this second part? Yes, almost. I think in the first two sentences we need to stick a little more closely to what we actually received in the CWG response: The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal or elsewhere. The CWG understands that those relationships will be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. Does this work for you? Thanks, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Oct 13 22:03:19 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:03:19 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> <24516559-14A9-4858-9AF0-BC361F6C2A4C@cooperw.in> <5EB70CA8-881C-4748-A4DA-2EECD790330E@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <38EF72B5-CFEE-48F4-A7CE-1D75CA27EF37@cooperw.in> Ok. I was trying to make room for the fact that the arrangements (and therefore their creation) are mentioned in the CWG proposal (para 1150 (2)). Saying they are “not addressed” could be construed as meaning that they are not mentioned at all, which is not true. How about: While the CWG proposal contemplates an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM, the CWG has confirmed to the ICG that such an arrangement has not been specified in the CWG proposal or elsewhere. Alissa > On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > I still have trouble with this: > > The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal > > It’s not that there are no details, it’s that there is no sketch of the architecture or requirements for the arrangement at all. So I think my original sentence is more accurate: The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. > > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:35 PM > To: Mueller, Milton L > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM > > Hi Milton, > > Jumping down to the text proposal: > > On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: > > The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The CWG now prefers to let those relationships be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. > > > The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > MM: So you are ok with this second part? > > Yes, almost. I think in the first two sentences we need to stick a little more closely to what we actually received in the CWG response: > > The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal or elsewhere. The CWG understands that those relationships will be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > Does this work for you? > > Thanks, > Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Oct 14 07:47:36 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 03:47:36 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for ICG call 23 Message-ID: <002201d10654$98fd4650$caf7d2f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find attached and linked below the minutes for ICG Call 23. Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1RarCLE Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-23-sept-2015-draft-v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 126976 bytes Desc: not available URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Wed Oct 14 14:46:00 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:46:00 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: <38EF72B5-CFEE-48F4-A7CE-1D75CA27EF37@cooperw.in> References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> <24516559-14A9-4858-9AF0-BC361F6C2A4C@cooperw.in> <5EB70CA8-881C-4748-A4DA-2EECD790330E@cooperw.in> <38EF72B5-CFEE-48F4-A7CE-1D75CA27EF37@cooperw.in> Message-ID: That looks good! While the CWG proposal contemplates an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM, the CWG has confirmed to the ICG that such an arrangement has not been specified in the CWG proposal or elsewhere. Alissa On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: I still have trouble with this: The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal It’s not that there are no details, it’s that there is no sketch of the architecture or requirements for the arrangement at all. So I think my original sentence is more accurate: The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:35 PM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM Hi Milton, Jumping down to the text proposal: On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The CWG now prefers to let those relationships be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. MM: So you are ok with this second part? Yes, almost. I think in the first two sentences we need to stick a little more closely to what we actually received in the CWG response: The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal or elsewhere. The CWG understands that those relationships will be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. Does this work for you? Thanks, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 17:03:24 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:03:24 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> <24516559-14A9-4858-9AF0-BC361F6C2A4C@cooperw.in> <5EB70CA8-881C-4748-A4DA-2EECD790330E@cooperw.in> <38EF72B5-CFEE-48F4-A7CE-1D75CA27EF37@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Dear All, I fully support the position taken by Milton Kavouss 2015-10-14 16:46 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L < milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>: > That looks good! > > > > While the CWG proposal contemplates an arrangement between the IFO and the > RZM, the CWG has confirmed to the ICG that such an arrangement has not been > specified in the CWG proposal or elsewhere. > > > > Alissa > > > > On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Mueller, Milton L < > milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote: > > > > I still have trouble with this: > > > > The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement > between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal > > > > It’s not that there are no details, it’s that there is no sketch of the > architecture or requirements for the arrangement at all. So I think my > original sentence is more accurate: The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to > the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has > not been addressed in their proposal. > > > > *From:* Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in ] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:35 PM > *To:* Mueller, Milton L > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM > > > > Hi Milton, > > > > Jumping down to the text proposal: > > > > On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L < > milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote: > > > > The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an > arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their > proposal. The CWG now prefers to let those relationships be defined by a > separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. > > > > > The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the > multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted > transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and > broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and > RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the > expiry of the NTIA contract. > > > > MM: So you are ok with this second part? > > > > Yes, almost. I think in the first two sentences we need to stick a little > more closely to what we actually received in the CWG response: > > > > The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement > between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal or > elsewhere. The CWG understands that those relationships will be defined by > a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if > it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, > this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities > for review by the CWG and broader public input, and that the written > agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in > place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > > > Does this work for you? > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Oct 14 18:26:24 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:26:24 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG and transition-related sessions in Dublin Message-ID: <00f301d106ad$d824e320$886ea960$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find a list below of transition related sessions in Dublin. Everyone should have received individual calendar invites for all the ICG sessions, please email the Secretariat off-list if you have not received these and they will be sent to you again. For the other all transition-related sessions (CCWG, CWG etc), you may find them on the 'Events relating to the IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition' subscription calendar on the ICG website here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/events-relating-to-the-iana-functions-stewar dship-transition/. Instructions on how to subscribe is on the link, if you have questions please feel free to email the Secretariat off-list. All times are local (IST/UTC+1), meeting room in parentheses (see attached venue map for further details): Friday, 16 October 08:30-18:30 - CCWG-Accountability Face-to-Face Meeting (Liffey H2) Saturday, 17 October 08:30-12:00 - CCWG-Accountability Sub-team Breakouts (Liffey H2) 13:00-17:00 - ICG Face-to-Face Meeting (Liffey B) Sunday, 18 October 09:00-12:00 - ICG Face-to-Face Meeting (Liffey B) 16:45-18:15 - Transition Perspectives: From Internet Pioneer and the U.S. Congress (Auditorium) Monday, 19 October 10:15-11:45 - CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session I (Auditorium) 12:00-13:00 - ICG Engagement Session (Auditorium) 14:00-18:30 - CCWG-Accountability Working Session I (Liffey B) Wednesday, 21 October 09:30-11:00 - CWG-Stewardship Working Session (Wicklow H2) 15:30-16:30 - IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation (Wicklow H2) 17:00-20:00 - CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session II (Auditorium) Thursday, 22 October 08:00-10:30 - CCWG-Accountability Working Session II (Liffey H2) 10:30-12:30 - ICG Working Session (Liffey B) Friday, 23 October 09:00-17:00 - ICG Working Session (Liffey B) Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: icann54-venue-map-09oct15-en.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 340042 bytes Desc: not available URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Thu Oct 15 11:57:25 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. Message-ID: <36f36067ba4f445291bc0786d9aa8eae@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Dear All .. With sincere apologies for the delay, please find attached the Public Comment Summary Report, compiled by Joe and myself, as agreed during our face-to-face meeting in LA .. It is basically comprised of text drafted by colleagues who volunteered (or were volunteered :)), and agreed on the mailing list by ICG members .. Kindly note that: - All sources, to our best, are included in green italics between square brackets .. - There are still highlights in yellow and comments where we were not sure, but thought to move the discussion to the list .. - Suggested edits to the agreed text are marked in track changes .. - Where there are 2 slightly different versions of the same text, both are included for us to decide .. Looking forward to our discussions in Dublin .. Safe travels to everyone .. Kind Regards --Manal PS: Joe and I worked on different versions and I'm attaching a merge, so all edits appear to come from me .. Yet I tried to mark Joe's comments as received .. Joe, please feel free to flag any inaccuracies .. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Comment Summary - 15Oct15.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 82105 bytes Desc: Public Comment Summary - 15Oct15.docx URL: From paf at frobbit.se Thu Oct 15 12:25:09 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:25:09 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum In-Reply-To: <03d101d10059$96c5f4a0$c451dde0$@icgsec.asia> References: <03d101d10059$96c5f4a0$c451dde0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <00940823-6F4C-456C-B036-DB5DEDB43DEB@frobbit.se> On 6 Oct 2015, at 19:08, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Please find the comment received on the ICG forum, details below: > > > Tuesday 6 Oct: Richard Hill - "How are you defining consensus?" - > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-October/000006.html > > Please let me know if you have any questions. Suggested description, to be confirmed by ICG: ICG do separate consensus for the content of the proposals from each one of the operational communities from consensus that the proposals are implementable (etc). ICG validates that the operational communities do have consensus for the proposals put forward to ICG and then seek consensus in ICG for the compatibility. In this process, we have separated the objections in three categories: - Comments that do believe NTIA made the wrong decision, which are out of scope for ICG - Comments that are on each OC proposal, which has consensus already within each OC, where ICG validate with the OC that the issue have been discussed already (that the correct process have been followed) - Comments that are on the ICG evaluation on interoperability and compatibility On the last point, after reviewing the public comments, the ICG has consensus that the proposals are compatible and interoperable. Patrik Fältström ICG Co-chair -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Oct 15 14:55:46 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:25:46 +0530 Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?Public_Comment_Summary_Report_=2E=2E?= Message-ID: <20151015145439.C717E1C1495@smtp.notifymdm.com> A slight edit to Manal's email, the document was compiled by her with some help from me. Thanks for all of your work! Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] Received: Thursday, 15 Oct 2015, 5:27PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] CC: joseph alhadeff (joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com) [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; Alissa Cooper (alissa at cooperw.in) [alissa at cooperw.in] Subject: Public Comment Summary Report .. Dear All .. With sincere apologies for the delay, please find attached the Public Comment Summary Report, compiled by Joe and myself, as agreed during our face-to-face meeting in LA .. It is basically comprised of text drafted by colleagues who volunteered (or were volunteered :)), and agreed on the mailing list by ICG members .. Kindly note that: - All sources, to our best, are included in green italics between square brackets .. - There are still highlights in yellow and comments where we were not sure, but thought to move the discussion to the list .. - Suggested edits to the agreed text are marked in track changes .. - Where there are 2 slightly different versions of the same text, both are included for us to decide .. Looking forward to our discussions in Dublin .. Safe travels to everyone .. Kind Regards --Manal PS: Joe and I worked on different versions and I'm attaching a merge, so all edits appear to come from me .. Yet I tried to mark Joe's comments as received .. Joe, please feel free to flag any inaccuracies .. From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 15 15:30:54 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:30:54 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> <24516559-14A9-4858-9AF0-BC361F6C2A4C@cooperw.in> <5EB70CA8-881C-4748-A4DA-2EECD790330E@cooperw.in> <38EF72B5-CFEE-48F4-A7CE-1D75CA27EF37@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <35A53FE1-CF2E-4309-9EF3-A139270D30A6@cooperw.in> I have reflected this in v3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/x2nbnucfpo257kj/IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx?dl=0 Alissa > On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > Dear All, > I fully support the position taken by Milton > Kavouss > > 2015-10-14 16:46 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L >: > That looks good! > > > > While the CWG proposal contemplates an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM, the CWG has confirmed to the ICG that such an arrangement has not been specified in the CWG proposal or elsewhere. > > > > Alissa > > > > On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: > > > > I still have trouble with this: > > > > The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal > > > > It’s not that there are no details, it’s that there is no sketch of the architecture or requirements for the arrangement at all. So I think my original sentence is more accurate: The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. > > > > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in ] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:35 PM > To: Mueller, Milton L > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM > > > > Hi Milton, > > > > Jumping down to the text proposal: > > > > On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: > > > > The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The CWG now prefers to let those relationships be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. > > > > > The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > > > MM: So you are ok with this second part? > > > > Yes, almost. I think in the first two sentences we need to stick a little more closely to what we actually received in the CWG response: > > > > The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal or elsewhere. The CWG understands that those relationships will be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > > > Does this work for you? > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 951645 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 15:46:27 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:46:27 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum In-Reply-To: <00940823-6F4C-456C-B036-DB5DEDB43DEB@frobbit.se> References: <03d101d10059$96c5f4a0$c451dde0$@icgsec.asia> <00940823-6F4C-456C-B036-DB5DEDB43DEB@frobbit.se> Message-ID: No comments on the objection raised by Richard, But pls kindly avoid to open a new and boring round of discussion on what consensus signifies. You never reach any conclusion . Kavouss 2015-10-15 14:25 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström : > On 6 Oct 2015, at 19:08, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > > Please find the comment received on the ICG forum, details below: > > > > > > Tuesday 6 Oct: Richard Hill - "How are you defining consensus?" - > > > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-October/000006.html > > > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Suggested description, to be confirmed by ICG: > > ICG do separate consensus for the content of the proposals from each one > of the operational communities from consensus that the proposals are > implementable (etc). ICG validates that the operational communities do have > consensus for the proposals put forward to ICG and then seek consensus in > ICG for the compatibility. > > In this process, we have separated the objections in three categories: > > - Comments that do believe NTIA made the wrong decision, which are out of > scope for ICG > > - Comments that are on each OC proposal, which has consensus already > within each OC, where ICG validate with the OC that the issue have been > discussed already (that the correct process have been followed) > > - Comments that are on the ICG evaluation on interoperability and > compatibility > > On the last point, after reviewing the public comments, the ICG has > consensus that the proposals are compatible and interoperable. > > Patrik Fältström > ICG Co-chair > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu Oct 15 15:54:44 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:54:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG Action Item Inventory References: <011301d1075a$b88f5fb0$29ae1f10$@difo.dk> Message-ID: <47BD3E47-1FF1-44CB-8C65-DDACD4E6603A@LStAmour.org> Dear colleagues, please find attached an updated inventory list that includes items from the Names community. Their oversight column is still under discussion and we expect to have more information at the end of the ICANN week. When I have that information, I will also edit the Numbers and Protocol Parameters per email exchanges, but did not want to hold this up given everyone's travel plans. Best, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG - Action Item Inventory - Draft w_CWG 14.10.15.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 13140 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 15 17:50:36 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:50:36 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM In-Reply-To: <35A53FE1-CF2E-4309-9EF3-A139270D30A6@cooperw.in> References: <595D39FF-7A59-4516-9E55-0D8AB7725D23@cooperw.in> <8A43EC90-64E3-4433-90CD-E8DC39A209D0@cooperw.in> <24516559-14A9-4858-9AF0-BC361F6C2A4C@cooperw.in> <5EB70CA8-881C-4748-A4DA-2EECD790330E@cooperw.in> <38EF72B5-CFEE-48F4-A7CE-1D75CA27EF37@cooperw.in> <35A53FE1-CF2E-4309-9EF3-A139270D30A6@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Milton pointed out to me that I missed some of the changes that needed to be made. I have now made those changes and reflected them in abbreviated form in the executive summary. https://www.dropbox.com/s/x2nbnucfpo257kj/IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx?dl=0 Alissa > On Oct 15, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > I have reflected this in v3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/x2nbnucfpo257kj/IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx?dl=0 > > Alissa > > > >> On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> I fully support the position taken by Milton >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-10-14 16:46 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L >: >> That looks good! >> >> >> >> While the CWG proposal contemplates an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM, the CWG has confirmed to the ICG that such an arrangement has not been specified in the CWG proposal or elsewhere. >> >> >> >> Alissa >> >> >> >> On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: >> >> >> >> I still have trouble with this: >> >> >> >> The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal >> >> >> >> It’s not that there are no details, it’s that there is no sketch of the architecture or requirements for the arrangement at all. So I think my original sentence is more accurate: The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. >> >> >> >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in ] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:35 PM >> To: Mueller, Milton L >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM >> >> >> >> Hi Milton, >> >> >> >> Jumping down to the text proposal: >> >> >> >> On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: >> >> >> >> The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The CWG now prefers to let those relationships be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. >> >> >> >> >> The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. >> >> >> >> MM: So you are ok with this second part? >> >> >> >> Yes, almost. I think in the first two sentences we need to stick a little more closely to what we actually received in the CWG response: >> >> >> >> The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal or elsewhere. The CWG understands that those relationships will be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. >> >> >> >> Does this work for you? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alissa >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 952657 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 15 17:52:11 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:52:11 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Updated transition proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3490B448-B1AA-46DD-8927-AC07BCC9BF6B@cooperw.in> Updated v3 with the RZM-related edits. https://www.dropbox.com/s/x2nbnucfpo257kj/IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx?dl=0 Alissa > On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Based on the responses to the questions we posed to the OCs and our discussion on the call yesterday, I’ve made the associated changes to the proposal text, part 0 and part 1. I also did a bit of an editing pass, incorporated the edits from Paul (with slight tweaks for consistency in some cases), incorporated a pared-down version of the implementation list from Lynn, and tried to have the executive summary reflect the updates. I’ve also highlighted in yellow all the places where we talk about the CCWG dependency. Once we finalize the rest of the text those will be the only bits we may need to edit in the future once the CCWG work wraps up. > > There is one outstanding substantive issue relating to the RZM text in paras 85-88. For now I incorporated into Milton’s text the text I had suggested on the list, but we need to make sure that is what we want to say or say something else (or wait and follow up with some other entity), and we need to figure out a resolution to the issue about the separation of the IFO and RZM roles. > > I did not put in anything about “how the OCs collaborate” as Lynn said work was ongoing on that. > > Please have a look at this version and send feedback to the list if you have any. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x2nbnucfpo257kj/IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx?dl=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 952657 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 15 17:54:18 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:54:18 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG Action Item Inventory In-Reply-To: <47BD3E47-1FF1-44CB-8C65-DDACD4E6603A@LStAmour.org> References: <011301d1075a$b88f5fb0$29ae1f10$@difo.dk> <47BD3E47-1FF1-44CB-8C65-DDACD4E6603A@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: Thank you Lynn. One question I have been wondering about: do we need column F? It seems a bit overkill to me for implementation purposes. As long as we know who has responsibility for carrying out each action item, it’s not obvious to me that we also need a separate body to oversee the performance of the action. We will have time to discuss on the weekend. Alissa > On Oct 15, 2015, at 8:54 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > please find attached an updated inventory list that includes items from the Names community. Their oversight column is still under discussion and we expect to have more information at the end of the ICANN week. > > When I have that information, I will also edit the Numbers and Protocol Parameters per email exchanges, but did not want to hold this up given everyone's travel plans. > > Best, > Lynn > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 15 19:09:08 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:09:08 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Shuttle Information for Saturday 17 October Message-ID: <015d01d1077c$fad4e350$f07ea9f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Below please find the information as received from the ICANN meetings team regarding the shuttles that are arranged for Saturday 17 October. Best Regards, Jennifer Saturday 17 October 2015 Shuttle - The Gresham to CCD 12:00 - pick up from The Gresham to CCD 19:00 - Return from CCD to The Gresham Shuttle - Jurys Inn Christchurch - Jurys Inn Parnell Street - CCD 07:30 - pick up from Jurys Inn Christchurch 07:45 - pick up from Jurys Inn Parnell Street 08:00 - Arrive to CCD 08:15 - pick up from Jurys Inn Christchurch 08:30 - pick up from Jurys Inn Parnell Street 08:45 - Arrive to CCD 09:00 - pick up from Jurys Inn Christchurch 09:15 - pick up from Jurys Inn Parnell Street 09:30 - Arrive to CCD Return from CCD to Jurys Inn Parnell Street and Jurys Inn Christchurch 18:00 18:45 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Fri Oct 16 04:55:04 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:55:04 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals Message-ID: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> Hi all, My understanding is that we have a timing problem with the CCWG process if another full public comment cycle is needed before completion of the accountability proposal, and if we wait for that before we submit to ICANN/NTIA. If that’s the case, do we have a solution for this? I hope that the ICG proposal can be finalised and submitted in any case, before the CCWG completes. If so, then when the CCWG does complete, it is only necessary for the 3 communities (primarily CWG) to confirm that the final accountability solution is acceptable to them, and for that to be conveyed formally to all concerned. As far as I’m aware, nothing within the CCWG process will have a substantial impact on the ICG proposal; the only issue is that the CCWG proposal must be acceptable, before the ICG proposal can be finally accepted and approved by NTIA. Therefore we can parallelise these processes to avoid breaking our overall timelines. Does this work, or have I missed something? Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Fri Oct 16 06:43:53 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:43:53 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals In-Reply-To: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> References: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> Message-ID: I'm not that sure that "nothing within the CCWG process will have a substantial impact on the ICG proposal". Under 1106 the proposal says: "The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) as described below. The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision.” In other words the combined proposal itself may need to be revised which may be an ICG task. I therefore wonder whether it is expedient sending the proposal before a certain level of assurance is reached that the CCWG can find agreement. The meeting in Dublin will be a touchstone. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul Wilson Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 6:55 AM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals Hi all, My understanding is that we have a timing problem with the CCWG process if another full public comment cycle is needed before completion of the accountability proposal, and if we wait for that before we submit to ICANN/NTIA. If that’s the case, do we have a solution for this? I hope that the ICG proposal can be finalised and submitted in any case, before the CCWG completes. If so, then when the CCWG does complete, it is only necessary for the 3 communities (primarily CWG) to confirm that the final accountability solution is acceptable to them, and for that to be conveyed formally to all concerned. As far as I’m aware, nothing within the CCWG process will have a substantial impact on the ICG proposal; the only issue is that the CCWG proposal must be acceptable, before the ICG proposal can be finally accepted and approved by NTIA. Therefore we can parallelise these processes to avoid breaking our overall timelines. Does this work, or have I missed something? Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Fri Oct 16 10:18:24 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:18:24 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals In-Reply-To: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> References: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > > I hope that the ICG proposal can be finalised and submitted in any case, before > the CCWG completes. Impossible. Forget about it. > If so, then when the CCWG does complete, it is only > necessary for the 3 communities (primarily CWG) to confirm that the final > accountability solution is acceptable to them, and for that to be conveyed > formally to all concerned. We have said in our proposal that by conveying the proposal to NTIA we are verifying that the CWG has ascertained that the CCWG mechanisms meet its requirements. Therefore we cannot convey the proposal before the CWG even knows what the CCWG is proposing. From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Fri Oct 16 12:56:56 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals In-Reply-To: References: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> Message-ID: <5620F418.8030303@oracle.com> Yes the question boils down to issues of whether names dependencies may be impacted by the CCWG accountability controversy and its resolution... On 10/16/2015 2:43 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > I'm not that sure that "nothing within the CCWG process will have a > substantial impact on the ICG proposal". Under 1106 the proposal says: > "The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly > conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability > mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN > Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) as described below. The co-chairs > of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated > their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the > CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will > meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously > communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level > accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the > CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require > revision.” > In other words the combined proposal itself may need to be revised > which may be an ICG task. > I therefore wonder whether it is expedient sending the proposal before > a certain level of assurance is reached that the CCWG can find > agreement. The meeting in Dublin will be a touchstone. > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > From: Paul Wilson > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 6:55 AM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals > Hi all, > My understanding is that we have a timing problem with the CCWG process > if another full public comment cycle is needed before completion of the > accountability proposal, and if we wait for that before we submit to > ICANN/NTIA. If that’s the case, do we have a solution for this? > I hope that the ICG proposal can be finalised and submitted in any case, > before the CCWG completes. If so, then when the CCWG does complete, it > is only necessary for the 3 communities (primarily CWG) to confirm that > the final accountability solution is acceptable to them, and for that to > be conveyed formally to all concerned. > As far as I’m aware, nothing within the CCWG process will have a > substantial impact on the ICG proposal; the only issue is that the CCWG > proposal must be acceptable, before the ICG proposal can be finally > accepted and approved by NTIA. Therefore we can parallelise these > processes to avoid breaking our overall timelines. > Does this work, or have I missed something? > Paul. > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Fri Oct 16 13:02:41 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals In-Reply-To: References: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> Message-ID: <5620F571.50204@oracle.com> Any predictions on when this issue might be resolved? On 10/16/2015 6:18 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> I hope that the ICG proposal can be finalised and submitted in any case, before >> the CCWG completes. > Impossible. Forget about it. > >> If so, then when the CCWG does complete, it is only >> necessary for the 3 communities (primarily CWG) to confirm that the final >> accountability solution is acceptable to them, and for that to be conveyed >> formally to all concerned. > We have said in our proposal that by conveying the proposal to NTIA we are verifying that the CWG has ascertained that the CCWG mechanisms meet its requirements. Therefore we cannot convey the proposal before the CWG even knows what the CCWG is proposing. > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From keith at internetnz.net.nz Fri Oct 16 15:45:15 2015 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 04:45:15 +1300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals In-Reply-To: <5620F571.50204@oracle.com> References: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> <5620F571.50204@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56211B8B.6040505@internetnz.net.nz> I think the answer to this might be more answerable tomorrow after the CCWG Accountability have their workshops on their most vexing issues... So we may have some clarity by the time the ICG meeting starts. Cheers Keith On 17/10/2015 2:02 a.m., joseph alhadeff wrote: > Any predictions on when this issue might be resolved? > > On 10/16/2015 6:18 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> I hope that the ICG proposal can be finalised and submitted in any >>> case, before >>> the CCWG completes. >> Impossible. Forget about it. >> >>> If so, then when the CCWG does complete, it is only >>> necessary for the 3 communities (primarily CWG) to confirm that the >>> final >>> accountability solution is acceptable to them, and for that to be >>> conveyed >>> formally to all concerned. >> We have said in our proposal that by conveying the proposal to NTIA we >> are verifying that the CWG has ascertained that the CCWG mechanisms >> meet its requirements. Therefore we cannot convey the proposal before >> the CWG even knows what the CCWG is proposing. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Oct 16 18:44:30 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:44:30 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for ICG Call 24 Message-ID: <003401d10842$b2375710$16a60530$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find attached and linked below the minutes for ICG Call 24. Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1ZJ4PMT Please let me know if you have any questions. See you all soon in Dublin and safe travels! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-8-oct-2015-draft-v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 133120 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Fri Oct 16 21:07:02 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 07:07:02 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals In-Reply-To: References: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> Message-ID: <8B0DF14A-CEBD-49AC-9986-291CED2538DD@apnic.net> Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. On 16 Oct 2015, at 16:43, WUKnoben wrote: > I'm not that sure that "nothing within the CCWG process will have a > substantial impact on the ICG proposal". Indeed, if there are substantial impacts then the plan fails; however if the outcome of the CCWG process is simply a “go/no-go” from the communities, then that message can come after the ICG proposal has been finished and submitted. > Under 1106 the proposal says: > "The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly > conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability > mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN > Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) as described below. The co-chairs > of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated > their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the > CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will > meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously > communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level > accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the > CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require > revision.” > > In other words the combined proposal itself may need to be revised > which may be an ICG task. > > I therefore wonder whether it is expedient sending the proposal before > a certain level of assurance is reached that the CCWG can find > agreement. The meeting in Dublin will be a touchstone. I agree. But what I am doing with this proposal is to put a contingency plan on the table which may be useful under certain circumstances. Thanks, Paul. From pwilson at apnic.net Fri Oct 16 21:13:06 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 07:13:06 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals In-Reply-To: References: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> Message-ID: <9D6ACB7B-66E0-4BE2-B783-6484D3ED89CC@apnic.net> On 16 Oct 2015, at 20:18, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> >> I hope that the ICG proposal can be finalised and submitted in any >> case, before >> the CCWG completes. > > Impossible. Forget about it. Milton what I’m responding to here is the possibility that the timing of the CCWG work makes the ICG’s mission impossible, and a complete waste of time for all. I think it’s incumbent on all of us to look at contingencies and find ways for our work to proceed to a successful conclusion. > >> If so, then when the CCWG does complete, it is only >> necessary for the 3 communities (primarily CWG) to confirm that the >> final >> accountability solution is acceptable to them, and for that to be >> conveyed >> formally to all concerned. > > We have said in our proposal that by conveying the proposal to NTIA we > are verifying that the CWG has ascertained that the CCWG mechanisms > meet its requirements. Therefore we cannot convey the proposal before > the CWG even knows what the CCWG is proposing. What we do and what we say are up to us as time goes on. Surely under changing circumstances we can also adjust our position. For instance by stating clearly with the submission (if the circumstances arise) that the CCWG work is yet to be finalised, and therefore the “ascertainment” will occur and be communicated at a later time. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Fri Oct 16 22:24:18 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 00:24:18 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals In-Reply-To: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> References: <50C5D95E-B7C1-43C2-9C8A-75DACA8FD766@apnic.net> Message-ID: <56217912.1090506@ripe.net> On 16.10.15 6:55 , Paul Wilson wrote: > Hi all, > > My understanding is that we have a timing problem with the CCWG process > if another full public comment cycle is needed before completion of the > accountability proposal, and if we wait for that before we submit to > ICANN/NTIA. If that’s the case, do we have a solution for this? How about we finalise our work as currently planned, publish it, state that we consider our work done unless unforeseen circumstances arise and then go into 'hibernation' with no planned meetings. We can also instruct our chairs at the same time to submit the proposal once CWG gives the thumbs-up; that would save another meeting. In case of unforeseen circumstances we can meet and decide on a new course of action. And while we are on the subject, I propose that when submitting the proposal we give a concrete date, say two months later, on which we will formally disband, such that NTIA knows how long we will be around to answer any questions they may have. Daniel From Lynn at LStAmour.org Sat Oct 17 00:06:11 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:06:11 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs In-Reply-To: References: <54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org> <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <9CF09694-B852-4BC4-8DB2-D45948D80E5D@LStAmour.org> Please find attached updated text for the action item (apologies for the delay, just too many action items here and elsewhere). 10) St. Amour, Gerich, and Fältström to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. Intro: Our task was to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs. In doing so, we recognized that the 3 OC model had not really been elaborated on in the ICG's proposal and as that was the basic underpinning, we tried to cover both. Our current thinking is that in Part 0 a new section after paragraph 01 could be useful. Basically, a high level model introduction, though we may still want to split this into two sections. The text below is based on RFC 2860, SAC-067, and the Internet Organizations (I*) Shared Resource document at https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/is-internetresources-201308-en.pdf . Note: the text below would need to incorporate appropriate references. As Patrik said previously, the key thing we felt was missing in the discussions so far is that for each registry there is already a given OC that has requested it, and because of that is in charge. To explain this without talking about history we felt was extremely difficult. It is definitely not the case that an OC that requires a registry "must" have it managed by the IANA Function at ICANN. What is discussed is what parameters and judgement OCs use when they make a decision on where to host a registry, and the fact they do (and always have) counted cooperation and collaboration as important parameters for that decision." There seemed to be support for keeping the background and historical information in, so that is what is reflected here -- though obviously up to the full ICG. The Internet’s incredible growth and success has been due in large part to its shared global ownership, use of open standards, and freely accessible processes for technology and policy development. The smooth operation of the Internet depends upon a global, collaborative and community-driven approach to managing key shared resources. Some of the most important shared resources are Internet Protocol addresses, Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters. Taken together these are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Function. The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative coordinating services, under policy direction from 3 Operating Communities (OCs), for many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate. The three “operational communities” (OCs) are: the domain names community (organized around ICANN’s supporting organizations and advisory committees); the number resources community (organized around the regional address registries or RIRs); and the protocol parameters community (organized around the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)). The identifiers are: 1) Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone; 2) Internet Numbers Registry; 3) Protocol Parameter Registry, including the “Address and Routing Parameter Area” (.ARPA) TLD; 4) INTernational treaty organizations (.INT) top-level domain. The services above are performed under a number of independent operational agreements between the Operating Communities (OCs) and ICANN (as the current IANA Functions Operator), as well as under a contract between ICANN and the USG Department of Commerce given their stewardship role over these functions. It is important to note that the Policy and many of the Oversight responsibilities for these tasks lie with the operational communities and not the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), hence they do not form part of the IFO's responsibilities. Community specific (and community defined) global policy development and oversight processes exist in the OCs as part of their responsibilities for ensuring the continued smooth operation of the global Internet. A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed. Currently, there is a multitude of collaboration mechanisms in place. The most obvious is that participants in the OCs also participate in the activities of other OCs, with the degree of formality decided by the OCs involved. Some examples: RIR participants also participate in IETF working groups; IETF participants participate in TLD-related activities at ICANN; the IETF appoints people to the ICANN TLG as well as a liaison to the ICANN Board; ICANN staff and participants participate in IETF working groups; the IESG has daily operational contact with the IANA staff; etc.). Some historical information may be useful here, and also described in Section 2 of SAC-067 , RFC2860 and of course the webpage for the IANA Function at ICANN . IANA started as a service to the community provided by one individual: Dr Jonathan B. Postel. Later the service was housed in ISI in Marina del Rey (where Dr. Postel was working), and it was specifically designed for what is now the Protocol Parameters Operational Community (IETF). The IANA Function was later contracted to ISI by the US Government as part of the Teranode contract, and that was subsequently replaced by the agreement between the US Gov and ICANN. This is the set of activities the US Government is now looking to transfer back to the private sector. Cooperation between the communities has always existed. Prior to ICANN's formation, IANA supported multiple policy development processes and each OC decided on registry policy and place of implementation for each of the registries they were responsible for defining. Another more specific example of cooperation has to do with IP addresses. The IETF sets the over all policy for IP addresses, while the RIRs set the detailed policy for subsets of the addresses. Some blocks are to be used for routing on the Internet, and IANA registers this over arching allocation. When RIRs later request addresses from IANA, IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA zones (and whois) are updated accordingly, through IANA, although the ARPA TLD is managed by IAB. In brief, IETF sets the over arching policy, RIRs set the detailed policy, and IANA registers and coordinates those allocations. The individual OC proposals go into a lot of detail about the intersections/collaboration between the registries (see paras 2016-2019, 3027, and P1.Annex A). Coordination across the OCs is clearly an essential component to the Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral part of the OCs operating and policy development processes. In the specific case of the IANA Functions, each community has clearly restated their ongoing commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run, is decentralized. Again, this could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere. We look forward to the ICG's comments. Best, Lynn, Patrik From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sat Oct 17 07:51:22 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:51:22 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Will Join Remotely Message-ID: <5621FDFA.6080907@ripe.net> Unfortunately I will not be able to join you because I am unfit to travel due to a heavy cold. I will travel to Dublin as soon as I will be sufficiently recovered. I plan to join the meeting remotely. Let's get this done this week. Daniel From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sat Oct 17 07:57:30 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:57:30 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Remember Jon Postel Today Message-ID: <5621FF6A.7020701@ripe.net> Yesterday marked another anniversary of Jon Postel's death. http://www.postel.org/postel.html Let's remember him by getting our work done this week. Daniel From jen at icgsec.asia Sat Oct 17 10:24:05 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 11:24:05 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Participating remotely for the ICG Dublin meetings Message-ID: <006c01d108c5$f52ef590$df8ce0b0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please see the remote participation information for the ICG sessions below. ICANN tech has kindly requested all remote ICG members to please dial into the phone bridge if they wish to make interventions by voice. This is because the Adobe Connect rooms are not set up to broadcast audio into the live meeting room. ICG face-to-face sessions --Adobe Connect link: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeyb --Audio/Bridge Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ --Conference ID: 92957255 Saturday 17 October - 13:00-17:00 IST (Liffey B): https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/sat-icg Sunday 18 October - 09:00-12:00 IST (Liffey B): https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/sun-icg Thursday 22 October - 10:30-12:30 IST (Liffey B): https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/thu-icg Friday 23 October - 09:00-17:00 IST (Liffey B): https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/fri-icg ICG Engagement session --Adobe Connect link: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-auditorium --Remote hubs will be available for this session, the phone bridge information TBD (if any) Monday 19 October 2015 - 12:00-13:00 IST (Auditorium): https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jon at donuts.email Sat Oct 17 10:49:50 2015 From: jon at donuts.email (Jon Nevett) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 06:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Will Join Remotely In-Reply-To: <5621FDFA.6080907@ripe.net> References: <5621FDFA.6080907@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A55DB95-9F3F-43F5-B12D-CA15425EC95B@donuts.email> Daniel: Feel better. Let's get what done this week? Best, Jon > On Oct 17, 2015, at 3:51 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > Unfortunately I will not be able to join you because I am unfit to > travel due to a heavy cold. I will travel to Dublin as soon as I will be > sufficiently recovered. I plan to join the meeting remotely. > > Let's get this done this week. > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sat Oct 17 11:10:04 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 13:10:04 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Will Join Remotely In-Reply-To: <4A55DB95-9F3F-43F5-B12D-CA15425EC95B@donuts.email> References: <5621FDFA.6080907@ripe.net> <4A55DB95-9F3F-43F5-B12D-CA15425EC95B@donuts.email> Message-ID: <56222C8C.7040809@ripe.net> On 17.10.15 12:49 , Jon Nevett wrote: > Daniel: > > Feel better. Let's get what done this week? Thanks. I meant that we should work to finalise our document this week. Daniel From Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk Sat Oct 17 10:16:35 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:16:35 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum In-Reply-To: References: <03d101d10059$96c5f4a0$c451dde0$@icgsec.asia> <00940823-6F4C-456C-B036-DB5DEDB43DEB@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B78810@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> A very heartfelt +1 to Kavouss here! From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 15 October 2015 16:46 To: Patrik Fältström; Alissa Cooper; Mohamed El Bashir Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum No comments on the objection raised by Richard, But pls kindly avoid to open a new and boring round of discussion on what consensus signifies. You never reach any conclusion . Kavouss 2015-10-15 14:25 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström >: On 6 Oct 2015, at 19:08, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Please find the comment received on the ICG forum, details below: > > > Tuesday 6 Oct: Richard Hill - "How are you defining consensus?" - > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-October/000006.html > > Please let me know if you have any questions. Suggested description, to be confirmed by ICG: ICG do separate consensus for the content of the proposals from each one of the operational communities from consensus that the proposals are implementable (etc). ICG validates that the operational communities do have consensus for the proposals put forward to ICG and then seek consensus in ICG for the compatibility. In this process, we have separated the objections in three categories: - Comments that do believe NTIA made the wrong decision, which are out of scope for ICG - Comments that are on each OC proposal, which has consensus already within each OC, where ICG validate with the OC that the issue have been discussed already (that the correct process have been followed) - Comments that are on the ICG evaluation on interoperability and compatibility On the last point, after reviewing the public comments, the ICG has consensus that the proposals are compatible and interoperable. Patrik Fältström ICG Co-chair _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Sat Oct 17 11:36:14 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:36:14 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agendas for Dublin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Minor updates attached. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-F2F-7-agenda-v1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 66749 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > On Oct 12, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Please see attached. Note that each day’s agenda is dependent on what we get done on the previous day and what happens during the ICANN week. We will need to update the Thursday and Friday agendas as the week progresses. > > Please send your feedback. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Sat Oct 17 11:55:34 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:55:34 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Remember Jon Postel Today In-Reply-To: <5621FF6A.7020701@ripe.net> References: <5621FF6A.7020701@ripe.net> Message-ID: On 17 Oct 2015, at 8:57, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Yesterday marked another anniversary of Jon Postel's death. > http://www.postel.org/postel.html > Let's remember him by getting our work done this week. FWIW: it the dinner with SO/AC/ICANN Leadership and executives yesterday I did have the opportunity to issue a toast to the memory of Jon. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Sat Oct 17 12:52:20 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:52:20 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2EE@ACCAN01.accan.local> All This is the text I propose we consider. I hope to still be awake by the time we get to this topic, given it is scheduled for around 2am my time. I would be happy to hold off on this discussion if necessary for a day or few. Please note, my thinking is that this is quite lightweight 'oversight' for want of a better word Co-ordination isn't quite sufficient. ----Text follows--------- The ICG might at some point have to offer its advice during the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition proposal. Principally, responsibility for implementation of the new components for IANA will rest with the relevant OC. The ICG - as a multistakeholder body, representative of the wider Internet community - can provide a lightweight oversight and co-ordination function and intervene if and when it feels that the implementation details fail to meet the standards of performance expected for IANA. Dissolution The ICG should dissolve as soon as the implementation phase is complete. ------------------------------------ [Checks on the completion should be made at 3mo intervals for a period of no greater than 12mo.] Thoughts? -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Sat Oct 17 13:05:45 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:05:45 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG Action Item Inventory In-Reply-To: <47BD3E47-1FF1-44CB-8C65-DDACD4E6603A@LStAmour.org> References: <011301d1075a$b88f5fb0$29ae1f10$@difo.dk> <47BD3E47-1FF1-44CB-8C65-DDACD4E6603A@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <00e101d108dc$8b084f60$a118ee20$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Per Paul's request, please find this matrix shared by Lynn and discussed during the meeting just now linked below: Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1NhhuzR Subfolder navigation: CoordinationGroup > Combined Proposal > Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 4:55 PM To: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG Action Item Inventory Dear colleagues, please find attached an updated inventory list that includes items from the Names community. Their oversight column is still under discussion and we expect to have more information at the end of the ICANN week. When I have that information, I will also edit the Numbers and Protocol Parameters per email exchanges, but did not want to hold this up given everyone's travel plans. Best, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From housley at vigilsec.com Sat Oct 17 13:10:25 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:10:25 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2EE@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2EE@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <12A4EBC1-B570-4A51-8A4A-BC413823F8A7@vigilsec.com> The middle name of the ICG is coordination, not oversight. I have a serious concern with any attempt to change the charter to oversight. Each of the operational communities already has mechanisms for oversight of the IANA functions, and we should not make any attempt to trump or interfere with them. Russ On Oct 17, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > All > This is the text I propose we consider. I hope to still be awake by the time we get to this topic, given it is scheduled for around 2am my time. I would be happy to hold off on this discussion if necessary for a day or few. Please note, my thinking is that this is quite lightweight ‘oversight’ for want of a better word Co-ordination isn’t quite sufficient. > > ----Text follows--------- > > The ICG might at some point have to offer its advice during the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition proposal. Principally, responsibility for implementation of the new components for IANA will rest with the relevant OC. The ICG — as a multistakeholder body, representative of the wider Internet community — can provide a lightweight oversight and co-ordination function and intervene if and when it feels that the implementation details fail to meet the standards of performance expected for IANA. > > Dissolution > > The ICG should dissolve as soon as the implementation phase is complete. > > ------------------------------------ > > [Checks on the completion should be made at 3mo intervals for a period of no greater than 12mo.] > > > Thoughts? > > > -- > > > Narelle Clark > Director of Operations - Deputy CEO > Australian Communications > Consumer Action Network > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Sat Oct 17 13:18:13 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 13:18:13 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested text Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954998B8EC@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries): How about "The ICG believes that a written agreement between IFO and RZM establishing each party's role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract, and that agreement should be made available for public review prior to execution."? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sat Oct 17 13:27:10 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:27:10 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change In-Reply-To: <12A4EBC1-B570-4A51-8A4A-BC413823F8A7@vigilsec.com> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2EE@ACCAN01.accan.local> <12A4EBC1-B570-4A51-8A4A-BC413823F8A7@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <43453569-02E4-464D-A703-C9BB245F084D@frobbit.se> My view is that doing what is suggested by Narelle would be rechartering ICG to continue coordination also in the implementation phase. For me, the responsibility for implementation lies with the OCs. If we are to continue coordination, interest for that should come from the OCs. Patrik On 17 Oct 2015, at 14:10, Russ Housley wrote: > The middle name of the ICG is coordination, not oversight. I have a serious concern with any attempt to change the charter to oversight. Each of the operational communities already has mechanisms for oversight of the IANA functions, and we should not make any attempt to trump or interfere with them. > > Russ > > > On Oct 17, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > >> All >> This is the text I propose we consider. I hope to still be awake by the time we get to this topic, given it is scheduled for around 2am my time. I would be happy to hold off on this discussion if necessary for a day or few. Please note, my thinking is that this is quite lightweight ‘oversight’ for want of a better word Co-ordination isn’t quite sufficient. >> >> ----Text follows--------- >> >> The ICG might at some point have to offer its advice during the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition proposal. Principally, responsibility for implementation of the new components for IANA will rest with the relevant OC. The ICG — as a multistakeholder body, representative of the wider Internet community — can provide a lightweight oversight and co-ordination function and intervene if and when it feels that the implementation details fail to meet the standards of performance expected for IANA. >> >> Dissolution >> >> The ICG should dissolve as soon as the implementation phase is complete. >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> [Checks on the completion should be made at 3mo intervals for a period of no greater than 12mo.] >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Narelle Clark >> Director of Operations - Deputy CEO >> Australian Communications >> Consumer Action Network >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sat Oct 17 13:54:19 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:54:19 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] proposed text Message-ID: <5622530B.1090308@ripe.net> We should say something like this. In the proposal we should say: "Coordination between the OCs needs to continue. During the development of the proposal the OCs have committed to continued coordination among themselves concerning the IANA. The ICG believes that no additional mechanisms for coordination are not needed. For a description of historic and current coordination mechanisms please see Annex C." From pwilson at apnic.net Sat Oct 17 13:56:04 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:56:04 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] proposed text In-Reply-To: <5622530B.1090308@ripe.net> References: <5622530B.1090308@ripe.net> Message-ID: <295B05F4-3DE9-4844-A7CB-B8BC6C7EEE14@apnic.net> On 17 Oct 2015, at 23:54, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > We should say something like this. > > In the proposal we should say: "Coordination between the OCs needs to > continue. During the development of the proposal the OCs have committed > to continued coordination among themselves concerning the IANA. The ICG > believes that no additional mechanisms for coordination are not needed. I don’t suppose you intend the double-negative here. Should it be: “no additional mechanisms for coordination are needed” > For a description of historic and current coordination mechanisms please > see Annex C." > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sat Oct 17 14:00:17 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 16:00:17 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change In-Reply-To: <12A4EBC1-B570-4A51-8A4A-BC413823F8A7@vigilsec.com> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2EE@ACCAN01.accan.local> <12A4EBC1-B570-4A51-8A4A-BC413823F8A7@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <6B453EA0EEBB401B950F9FA54311B6BE@WUKPC> I concur with Patrick saying: “If we are to continue coordination, interest for that should come from the OCs” But we should be triggering the OCs to point out their own interest and that of a potentially continuing relationship to the ICG. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Russ Housley Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 3:10 PM To: Narelle Clark Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change The middle name of the ICG is coordination, not oversight. I have a serious concern with any attempt to change the charter to oversight. Each of the operational communities already has mechanisms for oversight of the IANA functions, and we should not make any attempt to trump or interfere with them. Russ On Oct 17, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: All This is the text I propose we consider. I hope to still be awake by the time we get to this topic, given it is scheduled for around 2am my time. I would be happy to hold off on this discussion if necessary for a day or few. Please note, my thinking is that this is quite lightweight ‘oversight’ for want of a better word Co-ordination isn’t quite sufficient. ----Text follows--------- The ICG might at some point have to offer its advice during the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition proposal. Principally, responsibility for implementation of the new components for IANA will rest with the relevant OC. The ICG — as a multistakeholder body, representative of the wider Internet community — can provide a lightweight oversight and co-ordination function and intervene if and when it feels that the implementation details fail to meet the standards of performance expected for IANA. Dissolution The ICG should dissolve as soon as the implementation phase is complete. ------------------------------------ [Checks on the completion should be made at 3mo intervals for a period of no greater than 12mo.] Thoughts? -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Sat Oct 17 14:15:01 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 01:15:01 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change In-Reply-To: <6B453EA0EEBB401B950F9FA54311B6BE@WUKPC> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2EE@ACCAN01.accan.local> <12A4EBC1-B570-4A51-8A4A-BC413823F8A7@vigilsec.com> <6B453EA0EEBB401B950F9FA54311B6BE@WUKPC> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2EF@ACCAN01.accan.local> Wolf-Ulrich said: "I concur with Patrick saying: "If we are to continue coordination, interest for that should come from the OCs" But we should be triggering the OCs to point out their own interest and that of a potentially continuing relationship to the ICG." This works for me - if the OCs are happy for this to continue along with no further effort from us, then fine. I am, however, hearing otherwise. As we all know there is a long history of effective co-ordination between the groups. There is, however, new territory being traversed where a clearing house could be effective. The word oversight could be removed from the text I have drafted. [The issue could actually be that what is not be being more broadly is 'oversight of the oversight' while new processes are being bedded down. Is that what my sources are really asking for? Were that to be the case, how would people ask for that? How would they resolve that?] Narelle From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2015 1:00 AM I concur with Patrick saying: "If we are to continue coordination, interest for that should come from the OCs" But we should be triggering the OCs to point out their own interest and that of a potentially continuing relationship to the ICG. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Russ Housley Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 3:10 PM To: Narelle Clark Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change The middle name of the ICG is coordination, not oversight. I have a serious concern with any attempt to change the charter to oversight. Each of the operational communities already has mechanisms for oversight of the IANA functions, and we should not make any attempt to trump or interfere with them. Russ On Oct 17, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: All This is the text I propose we consider. I hope to still be awake by the time we get to this topic, given it is scheduled for around 2am my time. I would be happy to hold off on this discussion if necessary for a day or few. Please note, my thinking is that this is quite lightweight 'oversight' for want of a better word Co-ordination isn't quite sufficient. ----Text follows--------- The ICG might at some point have to offer its advice during the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition proposal. Principally, responsibility for implementation of the new components for IANA will rest with the relevant OC. The ICG - as a multistakeholder body, representative of the wider Internet community - can provide a lightweight oversight and co-ordination function and intervene if and when it feels that the implementation details fail to meet the standards of performance expected for IANA. Dissolution The ICG should dissolve as soon as the implementation phase is complete. ------------------------------------ [Checks on the completion should be made at 3mo intervals for a period of no greater than 12mo.] Thoughts? -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat Oct 17 14:17:23 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:17:23 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change In-Reply-To: <6B453EA0EEBB401B950F9FA54311B6BE@WUKPC> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2EE@ACCAN01.accan.local> <12A4EBC1-B570-4A51-8A4A-BC413823F8A7@vigilsec.com> <6B453EA0EEBB401B950F9FA54311B6BE@WUKPC> Message-ID: <56225873.5070000@oracle.com> Agree that beyond the cataloging function within the proposal, our implementation coordination role should be invited.... On 10/17/2015 10:00 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > I concur with Patrick saying: “If we are to continue coordination, > interest for that should come from the OCs” > But we should be triggering the OCs to point out their own interest > and that of a potentially continuing relationship to the ICG. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > *From:* Russ Housley > *Sent:* Saturday, October 17, 2015 3:10 PM > *To:* Narelle Clark > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change > The middle name of the ICG is coordination, not oversight. I have a > serious concern with any attempt to change the charter to oversight. > Each of the operational communities already has mechanisms for > oversight of the IANA functions, and we should not make any attempt to > trump or interfere with them. > Russ > On Oct 17, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > >> All >> This is the text I propose we consider. I hope to still be awake by >> the time we get to this topic, given it is scheduled for around 2am >> my time. I would be happy to hold off on this discussion if necessary >> for a day or few. Please note, my thinking is that this is quite >> lightweight ‘oversight’ for want of a better word Co-ordination isn’t >> quite sufficient. >> ----Text follows--------- >> The ICG might at some point have to offer its advice during the >> implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition proposal. >> Principally, responsibility for implementation of the new components >> for IANA will rest with the relevant OC. The ICG — as a >> multistakeholder body, representative of the wider Internet community >> — can provide a lightweight oversight and co-ordination function and >> intervene if and when it feels that the implementation details fail >> to meet the standards of performance expected for IANA. >> Dissolution >> The ICG should dissolve as soon as the implementation phase is complete. >> ------------------------------------ >> [Checks on the completion should be made at 3mo intervals for a >> period of no greater than 12mo.] >> Thoughts? >> -- >> Narelle Clark >> Director of Operations - Deputy CEO >> *Australian Communications* >> *Consumer Action Network* >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Sat Oct 17 14:17:40 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:17:40 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATE: Shuttle Information for Saturday 17 October Message-ID: <010f01d108e6$98b257a0$ca1706e0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The updated leaving time for shuttle going back to The Gresham Hotel is 17:30 today. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:09 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Shuttle Information for Saturday 17 October Dear All, Below please find the information as received from the ICANN meetings team regarding the shuttles that are arranged for Saturday 17 October. Best Regards, Jennifer Saturday 17 October 2015 Shuttle - The Gresham to CCD 12:00 - pick up from The Gresham to CCD 19:00 - Return from CCD to The Gresham Shuttle - Jurys Inn Christchurch - Jurys Inn Parnell Street - CCD 07:30 - pick up from Jurys Inn Christchurch 07:45 - pick up from Jurys Inn Parnell Street 08:00 - Arrive to CCD 08:15 - pick up from Jurys Inn Christchurch 08:30 - pick up from Jurys Inn Parnell Street 08:45 - Arrive to CCD 09:00 - pick up from Jurys Inn Christchurch 09:15 - pick up from Jurys Inn Parnell Street 09:30 - Arrive to CCD Return from CCD to Jurys Inn Parnell Street and Jurys Inn Christchurch 18:00 18:45 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Sat Oct 17 14:39:42 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:39:42 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change In-Reply-To: <56225873.5070000@oracle.com> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2EE@ACCAN01.accan.local> <12A4EBC1-B570-4A51-8A4A-BC413823F8A7@vigilsec.com> <6B453EA0EEBB401B950F9FA54311B6BE@WUKPC> <56225873.5070000@oracle.com> Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954998BE98@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> If the OCs feel there's benefit to a continuing ICG coordination role through implementation, or an implementation information clearinghouse role, I would be open to considering that. Agree that the request should come to the ICG from the OCs. Keith From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 3:17 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change Agree that beyond the cataloging function within the proposal, our implementation coordination role should be invited.... On 10/17/2015 10:00 AM, WUKnoben wrote: I concur with Patrick saying: "If we are to continue coordination, interest for that should come from the OCs" But we should be triggering the OCs to point out their own interest and that of a potentially continuing relationship to the ICG. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Russ Housley Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 3:10 PM To: Narelle Clark Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change The middle name of the ICG is coordination, not oversight. I have a serious concern with any attempt to change the charter to oversight. Each of the operational communities already has mechanisms for oversight of the IANA functions, and we should not make any attempt to trump or interfere with them. Russ On Oct 17, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: All This is the text I propose we consider. I hope to still be awake by the time we get to this topic, given it is scheduled for around 2am my time. I would be happy to hold off on this discussion if necessary for a day or few. Please note, my thinking is that this is quite lightweight 'oversight' for want of a better word Co-ordination isn't quite sufficient. ----Text follows--------- The ICG might at some point have to offer its advice during the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition proposal. Principally, responsibility for implementation of the new components for IANA will rest with the relevant OC. The ICG - as a multistakeholder body, representative of the wider Internet community - can provide a lightweight oversight and co-ordination function and intervene if and when it feels that the implementation details fail to meet the standards of performance expected for IANA. Dissolution The ICG should dissolve as soon as the implementation phase is complete. ------------------------------------ [Checks on the completion should be made at 3mo intervals for a period of no greater than 12mo.] Thoughts? -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Sat Oct 17 15:04:43 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 16:04:43 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested text In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954998B8EC@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <937612.65.1445092531187.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Thanks Keith, I agree, with one small change, "considers" or "underlines", rather than "believes". Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Keith Drazek" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Samedi 17 Octobre 2015 14:18:13 Objet: [Internal-cg] Suggested text Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries): How about "The ICG believes that a written agreement between IFO and RZM establishing each party's role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract, and that agreement should be made available for public review prior to execution."? _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sat Oct 17 15:38:53 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 17:38:53 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] proposed text In-Reply-To: <295B05F4-3DE9-4844-A7CB-B8BC6C7EEE14@apnic.net> References: <5622530B.1090308@ripe.net> <295B05F4-3DE9-4844-A7CB-B8BC6C7EEE14@apnic.net> Message-ID: <56226B8D.1030701@ripe.net> of course. i must have read over it one time short of seeing that ;-) also i am not married to the exact words. this is the content of what i propose we say. On 17.10.15 15:56 , Paul Wilson wrote: > On 17 Oct 2015, at 23:54, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> We should say something like this. >> >> In the proposal we should say: "Coordination between the OCs needs to >> continue. During the development of the proposal the OCs have committed >> to continued coordination among themselves concerning the IANA. The ICG >> believes that no additional mechanisms for coordination are not needed. > > I don’t suppose you intend the double-negative here. > > Should it be: > > “no additional mechanisms for coordination are needed” > >> For a description of historic and current coordination mechanisms please >> see Annex C." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From kdrazek at verisign.com Sat Oct 17 15:44:05 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:44:05 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sunday ICG Meeting - Apologies Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954998C5C3@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Hi all, I have a conflict tomorrow during our scheduled meeting - the GNSO Council working session. Please accept my apologies. Best, Keith Drazek -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From yannis at icgsec.asia Sat Oct 17 16:42:49 2015 From: yannis at icgsec.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 00:42:49 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #7 Day 1 Attendance Message-ID: <35D86F34-EB38-47E0-B951-749753DF94EB@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the attendance list (below) and chat transcript (attached) for Day 1 of the ICG F2F #7: ICG Members Alan Barrett (NRO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Michael Niebel (GAC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Apologies Kuo-wei Wu (Board Liaison) Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) James Bladel (GNSO) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Yannis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG F2F Meeting #7 Day 1 Chat Transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 107513 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Sat Oct 17 21:33:40 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 22:33:40 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v4 Message-ID: <43474286-2FDB-470C-98CF-E4492B393F66@cooperw.in> Updated transition proposal to reflect our discussion today is attached. Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ltikwpkv58j4zb5/IANA-transition-proposal-v4.docx?dl=0 List of changes with the primary person who suggested them: X015: Added CCWG-related para lifted from part zero (Arkko) X017: Added community collaboration paragraph lifted from part zero (St.Amour/Fälström) X030: Reflected RZM edits from part 0 (all) 02, 55-58: Added paragraphs based on “how collaboration works today” emails/discussion (St.Amour/Fälström), with wordsmithing. Note: After inserting these, I do not believe there are any points left in the proposed text from Lynn/Patrik that have not been covered (including in paragraph 04) that would warrant an Annex. So I have not added an Annex. 93: Made RZM text edits as agreed (all) 103: Replaced “the strengthening” with “a strengthening” and deleted first clause of second sentence (Niebel) 107: Added detail to “Establishment of issue resolution mechanisms” bullet (Alhadeff) 108: Added "Implementation of any ICANN accountability mechanisms identified by the CWG as required to be in place before the expiry of the NTIA contract” bullet (Boyle) Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v4.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 957449 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Sat Oct 17 21:46:33 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 22:46:33 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agendas for Dublin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21162BED-0171-4717-A210-B1D982FF576E@cooperw.in> Updated based on today’s discussion. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-F2F-7-agenda-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 72388 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > On Oct 17, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Minor updates attached. > > >> On Oct 12, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> Please see attached. Note that each day’s agenda is dependent on what we get done on the previous day and what happens during the ICANN week. We will need to update the Thursday and Friday agendas as the week progresses. >> >> Please send your feedback. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Sat Oct 17 22:56:48 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:56:48 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG F2F meeting 7 - Day 1: Action Items and Decisions Taken Message-ID: <021a01d1092f$1bd0b2b0$53721810$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, As confirmed by the chairs, please see the Action Items and Decisions Taken from Day 1: Action Items: 1. Between now and Thursday’s ICG meeting, ICG members to send comments to the internal-cg mailing list regarding the implementation spreadsheet from St. Amour.   2.Between now and Thursday’s ICG meeting, ICG members to send to the internal-cg mailing list proposals for how to frame question(s) to the operational communities regarding the ICG role during the implementation phase.    Decisions Taken: 1. From now until 30 September 2016, the ICG will: (1) keep the internal-cg mailing list active; (2) ensure that the communities have a way to reach the ICG; (3) will only schedule conference calls/meetings on an as-needed basis. The ICG will revisit this decision on or before 30 September 2016.   Best Regards, Jennifer From pwilson at apnic.net Sun Oct 18 06:46:33 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:46:33 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954998BE98@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2EE@ACCAN01.accan.local> <12A4EBC1-B570-4A51-8A4A-BC413823F8A7@vigilsec.com> <6B453EA0EEBB401B950F9FA54311B6BE@WUKPC> <56225873.5070000@oracle.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954998BE98@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <82B34A02-92B6-4562-9ED4-57530ECA10C6@apnic.net> I agree that we need to ask the OCs. Rather than an open-ended question, I suggest something like: > “The ICG has identified the possible need for an ongoing > coordination function during the implementation of the IANA transition > plan, which would be described through the following change in the ICG > Charter: > > <> > > The ICG is now seeking the agreement of the OCs to this change in the > charter; or for any alternative formulation; or any other response to > this proposal.” As for the text itself, I agree this is not about “oversight”, but rather ongoing “coordination” and possibly also “support” for the implementation process. Paul. On 18 Oct 2015, at 0:39, Drazek, Keith wrote: > If the OCs feel there's benefit to a continuing ICG coordination role > through implementation, or an implementation information clearinghouse > role, I would be open to considering that. Agree that the request > should come to the ICG from the OCs. > > Keith > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > joseph alhadeff > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 3:17 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change > > Agree that beyond the cataloging function within the proposal, our > implementation coordination role should be invited.... > On 10/17/2015 10:00 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > I concur with Patrick saying: "If we are to continue coordination, > interest for that should come from the OCs" > > But we should be triggering the OCs to point out their own interest > and that of a potentially continuing relationship to the ICG. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > From: Russ Housley > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 3:10 PM > To: Narelle Clark > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change > > The middle name of the ICG is coordination, not oversight. I have a > serious concern with any attempt to change the charter to oversight. > Each of the operational communities already has mechanisms for > oversight of the IANA functions, and we should not make any attempt to > trump or interfere with them. > > Russ > > > On Oct 17, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > > > All > This is the text I propose we consider. I hope to still be awake by > the time we get to this topic, given it is scheduled for around 2am my > time. I would be happy to hold off on this discussion if necessary for > a day or few. Please note, my thinking is that this is quite > lightweight 'oversight' for want of a better word Co-ordination isn't > quite sufficient. > > ----Text follows--------- > > The ICG might at some point have to offer its advice during the > implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition proposal. > Principally, responsibility for implementation of the new components > for IANA will rest with the relevant OC. The ICG - as a > multistakeholder body, representative of the wider Internet community > - can provide a lightweight oversight and co-ordination function and > intervene if and when it feels that the implementation details fail to > meet the standards of performance expected for IANA. > > Dissolution > > The ICG should dissolve as soon as the implementation phase is > complete. > > ------------------------------------ > > [Checks on the completion should be made at 3mo intervals for a period > of no greater than 12mo.] > > > Thoughts? > > > -- > > > Narelle Clark > Director of Operations - Deputy CEO > Australian Communications > Consumer Action Network > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From jen at icgsec.asia Sun Oct 18 06:55:34 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 07:55:34 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Shuttle Information for Sunday 18 Oct through Thursday 22 Oct Message-ID: <023501d10972$0144c1a0$03ce44e0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find attached and linked below, the schedules for shuttles to and from the hotels and the venue. https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann54_hotel_shuttles.pdf Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: icann54_hotel_shuttles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 52090 bytes Desc: not available URL: From yannis at icgsec.asia Sun Oct 18 07:53:44 2015 From: yannis at icgsec.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:53:44 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Updated AdobeConnect Link for Today's ICG session (18 Oct) Message-ID: <8C63AA5D-782F-49AB-8C3D-6CB28F97E725@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, The original ICANN adobe link will not be working today. Please find below the updated Adobe link for today’s ICG session only. https://meet16733133.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeyb --Audio/Bridge Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ --Conference ID: 92957255 Thank you very much. Best Regards, Yannis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 08:30:45 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 10:30:45 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts Message-ID: <562358B5.1090809@ripe.net> Let me take the role of arguing against group-think. It may help that I am not in Dublin at this time. ;-) I understand that some want us to stay around to keep everyone, specifically ICANN, honest during implementation. Our current charter does not cover this. This requires a re-charter. Something like "Regularly compile information about the state of the transition and report it to the Internet community." We should not change the charter on our own initiative. If we do that our credibility will be that of self-appointed vigilantes. Even formally asking "How can we help further?" looks pathetic to me and it certainly would weaken our credibility going forward. Therefore I propose that we should just publish the proposal and say that we are done and will hibernate until we get the OK to submit it and answer possible questions about it. In response to our statement the OCs and others could ask us on their own initiative to do something in addition like "Regularly compile information about the state of the transition and report it to the Internet community." The OCs might even offer material support for this additional work to fund part of the secretariat and/or travel. If that were to occur we would very likely agree to do that and our mandate and credibility doing this would be very very strong. If the OCs actually manage to ask us to do this as a group or with coordinated language it would be strong evidence of their ability to coordinate. Would this be a way forward? Daniel PS: While I am on it may I also suggest that we ask all three OCs whether it is OK to submit the proposal and not just the CWG. The optics of that look much better to me personally. From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sun Oct 18 08:35:33 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 04:35:33 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <562358B5.1090809@ripe.net> References: <562358B5.1090809@ripe.net> Message-ID: <562359D5.8070601@oracle.com> Daniel: I would not call it a publication, but rather an interim publication awaiting finalization. I then think we wait for Names and then publish the final, assuming the changes are minor - or consider a new comment period if the changes are substantial, and submit as appropriate related to the need for any further comment. A slight modification to your suggestion because I am concerned we are starting to confuse the non-initiate in the steps of the process and the status of the proposal... Agree on no unilateral modification of the charter. Joe On 10/18/2015 4:30 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Let me take the role of arguing against group-think. It may help that I > am not in Dublin at this time. ;-) > > I understand that some want us to stay around to keep everyone, > specifically ICANN, honest during implementation. > > Our current charter does not cover this. This requires a re-charter. > Something like "Regularly compile information about the state of the > transition and report it to the Internet community." > > We should not change the charter on our own initiative. If we do that > our credibility will be that of self-appointed vigilantes. Even formally > asking "How can we help further?" looks pathetic to me and it certainly > would weaken our credibility going forward. > > Therefore I propose that we should just publish the proposal and say > that we are done and will hibernate until we get the OK to submit it and > answer possible questions about it. > > In response to our statement the OCs and others could ask us on their > own initiative to do something in addition like "Regularly compile > information about the state of the transition and report it to the > Internet community." The OCs might even offer material support for this > additional work to fund part of the secretariat and/or travel. If that > were to occur we would very likely agree to do that and our mandate and > credibility doing this would be very very strong. > > If the OCs actually manage to ask us to do this as a group or with > coordinated language it would be strong evidence of their ability to > coordinate. > > Would this be a way forward? > > Daniel > > PS: While I am on it may I also suggest that we ask all three OCs > whether it is OK to submit the proposal and not just the CWG. The optics > of that look much better to me personally. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 09:58:26 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:58:26 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions Message-ID: <56236D42.8070309@ripe.net> I tried to get recognised just before the break. Here is what I was going to raise. Here is a, possibly incomplete, set of language that refers to the dependency of the CWG proposal on the accountability work: ------- 47 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete. 62 The ICG will seek confirmation that the CCWG final Work Stream 1 proposal meets the CWG requirements. If the CCWG output does not meet the needs as contemplated by the names proposal, the CWG has indicated it will revise its proposal. Because of this dependency it is impossible for the ICG to conclude its assessment of the accountability mechanisms with regards to the names functions at this time. 104 After the finalization of CCWG Work Stream 1, the ICG will make a final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as specified in the names proposal. X014 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete. ----- This has sufficient variation to be confusing. I strongly feel that we need to be consistent and as clear as possible in what we write about this dependency. All we have committed to is for the CWG to say that they the accountability work meets their requirements. Maybe we should say just that and avoid all the variety in this language? Daniel From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 10:06:53 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:06:53 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <56236D42.8070309@ripe.net> References: <56236D42.8070309@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56236F3D.1090607@ripe.net> And here is what I propose we say: X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as specified in the names proposal. X014 Before submitting this proposal the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. and shorten the language in the other paragraphs in line with this. Daniel From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sun Oct 18 10:07:25 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 06:07:25 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <56236D42.8070309@ripe.net> References: <56236D42.8070309@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56236F5D.4050807@oracle.com> Daniel: The conditions related to CWG in my mind are as follows: ICG has assembled a proposal that would be considered complete if the dependencies specified by CWG were met. We await the confirmation by CWG that the dependencies have been met as the last hurdle to finalization and submission. If the dependencies are not met and CWG was to substantially change its proposal, ICG would need to review such changes in light of responsiveness to the RFP, meeting of NTIA criteria and impacts on the combined proposal; that ICG review would dictate any further action that might be needed. Joe On 10/18/2015 5:58 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > I tried to get recognised just before the break. > Here is what I was going to raise. Here is a, possibly incomplete, set > of language that refers to the dependency of the CWG proposal on the > accountability work: > > ------- > > 47 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG > will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it > considers the names proposal to be complete. > > 62 The ICG will seek confirmation that the CCWG final Work Stream 1 > proposal meets the CWG requirements. If the CCWG output does not meet > the needs as contemplated by the names proposal, the CWG has indicated > it will revise its proposal. Because of this dependency it is impossible > for the ICG to conclude its assessment of the accountability mechanisms > with regards to the names functions at this time. > > 104 After the finalization of CCWG Work Stream 1, the ICG will make a > final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the > transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described > above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition > proposal. > > X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the > condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability > mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working > Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as > specified in the names proposal. > > X014 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG > will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it > considers the names proposal to be complete. > > ----- > > This has sufficient variation to be confusing. > I strongly feel that we need to be consistent and as clear as possible > in what we write about this dependency. > > All we have committed to is for the CWG to say that they the > accountability work meets their requirements. Maybe we should say just > that and avoid all the variety in this language? > > Daniel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Sun Oct 18 10:10:04 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:10:04 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 Message-ID: What about this as new 02: HISTORY / BACKGROUND 02 The Internet’s growth has been due in large part to its shared global ownership, use of open standards, and freely accessible processes for technology and policy development. The smooth operation of the Internet depends upon a global, collaborative and community-driven approach to managing key shared resources. Some of the most important shared resources (also called registries) are Internet Protocol addresses, Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters. The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative coordinating services for these and others. Each such resource is operated under a policy defined by a specific community. These are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Function. IANA started as a service to the community provided by one individual: Dr Jonathan B. Postel. Later the service was housed in ISI in Marina del Rey (where Dr. Postel was working). The IANA Function was later contracted to ISI by the US Government as part of the Teranode contract, and that was subsequently replaced by the agreement between the US Gov and ICANN. This is the set of services the US Government is now looking to transfer back to the private sector. The services are performed under a number of independent operational agreements between the Operating Communities (OCs) and ICANN (as the current IANA Functions Operator), as well as under a contract between ICANN and the USG Department of Commerce given their stewardship role over these functions. It is important to reiterate that the Policy and many of the Oversight responsibilities for these tasks lie with the communities and not the IANA Functions Operator (IFO). Community specific (and community defined) global policy development and oversight processes exist in the communities as part of their responsibilities for ensuring the continued smooth operation of the global Internet. A web of relationships exists between these communities, and the relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed, and further defined in Part 0. Coordination across the communities is clearly an essential component to the Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral part of the communities operating and policy development processes. That cooperation and collaboration has led to the situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run, is decentralized. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sun Oct 18 10:14:19 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:14:19 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <56236D42.8070309@ripe.net> References: <56236D42.8070309@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5E6E6B5ECF5E44EC95D70532724ABD5D@WUKPC> I agree, in particular with respect to the inconsistency between 47 and 104 Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 11:58 AM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions I tried to get recognised just before the break. Here is what I was going to raise. Here is a, possibly incomplete, set of language that refers to the dependency of the CWG proposal on the accountability work: ------- 47 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete. 62 The ICG will seek confirmation that the CCWG final Work Stream 1 proposal meets the CWG requirements. If the CCWG output does not meet the needs as contemplated by the names proposal, the CWG has indicated it will revise its proposal. Because of this dependency it is impossible for the ICG to conclude its assessment of the accountability mechanisms with regards to the names functions at this time. 104 After the finalization of CCWG Work Stream 1, the ICG will make a final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as specified in the names proposal. X014 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete. ----- This has sufficient variation to be confusing. I strongly feel that we need to be consistent and as clear as possible in what we write about this dependency. All we have committed to is for the CWG to say that they the accountability work meets their requirements. Maybe we should say just that and avoid all the variety in this language? Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 10:19:53 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:19:53 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56237249.4060601@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I am now convinced that we need this level of detail in para 02 for the benefit of the uninitiated. So: yes. The language should be improved for more clarity in several ways: Most importantly talk about 'registries' only and drop 'resources' completely . Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWI3JJAAoJENDY5Emqa716e1wQAKVMblDdv0Fnu2MQ3tXmU5zu pbzpgPY8Bci+RrZW+fW6Af0SGgeakF9xJEoRYmkmNIXtGG+LB2gaFByHVNjTOSZ1 YkAQ/ZiwSRZrGS+XBGHQYmpQNU8wt2WTOCb/+Qo0pwWIKDMDq7kGRiKn7U5pjhvr E79JWiEY2pn7JH7gajyOccWL6qn7NXmhJPeJtp7ZN/DXx8lEU+KXQdidFrcVV2no PGx3i9ON9qRCeNxGfbuRBr5Df8VF/sNE7KaitxNOw8JmEJe5eMbleg2jS0N+GWoi eF7Z8tP7ogf6/vgO/yt0qn2beP8Zbe8O8As57PWdncHwUbPDmYAw05lSACqPWF2q KAEFYEZPbduk2pkit8/FichGWBNZ1hReIHRMFgF1onDJ534mte/wHzNUuinqak6k 0ZpsGMuwF+BZYNEDAP+JI7gtjdxUt3HlZ0R/IXLdpOiPq+KaElAwnnTP+DfynO4z mxqhlEZerW45hFaK5WFLVvBAwr9YUhDvO4JFq8UPLYFgkBplFrolOg+0FUlUecRI SXX47g8LU1Dkn/fhO4NpQBk7FH+ysCsijcZQVNZwvDMBtTP7psdm7z6iilEes2L0 WppNCKC7jncx4AgWlzTolfHp6Y6c44K3b2GDHmW2QG4f0szWIFCYKgNyPYsLbNdi exrye40yd2R8bklamNtw =FhU3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jari.arkko at piuha.net Sun Oct 18 10:21:25 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:21:25 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A9265E6-E183-4628-80E2-0723DE9D206C@piuha.net> looks good to me jari From epusp75 at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 10:36:41 2015 From: epusp75 at gmail.com (demi getschko) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:36:41 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 In-Reply-To: <9A9265E6-E183-4628-80E2-0723DE9D206C@piuha.net> References: <9A9265E6-E183-4628-80E2-0723DE9D206C@piuha.net> Message-ID: Seems ok to me. May be useful also some reference to: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/1998/statement-policy-management-internet-names-and-addresses demi On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > looks good to me > > jari > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 18 10:37:18 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:37:18 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <56236D42.8070309@ripe.net> Message-ID: <23131472.4.1445164635998.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Daniel, fine. I just have some doubts about a notion in your para. 104, where you say "...the ICG will make a final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal". To be accurate, I don't think we will "recommend" to NTIA to accept our Proposal, we will just send it to them, and they will decide whether to accept or not. In simple terms, our Transition Plan is in fact a recommendation. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 10:58:26 Objet: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions I tried to get recognised just before the break. Here is what I was going to raise. Here is a, possibly incomplete, set of language that refers to the dependency of the CWG proposal on the accountability work: ------- 47 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete. 62 The ICG will seek confirmation that the CCWG final Work Stream 1 proposal meets the CWG requirements. If the CCWG output does not meet the needs as contemplated by the names proposal, the CWG has indicated it will revise its proposal. Because of this dependency it is impossible for the ICG to conclude its assessment of the accountability mechanisms with regards to the names functions at this time. 104 After the finalization of CCWG Work Stream 1, the ICG will make a final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as specified in the names proposal. X014 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete. ----- This has sufficient variation to be confusing. I strongly feel that we need to be consistent and as clear as possible in what we write about this dependency. All we have committed to is for the CWG to say that they the accountability work meets their requirements. Maybe we should say just that and avoid all the variety in this language? Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sun Oct 18 10:42:10 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 06:42:10 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <23131472.4.1445164635998.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <23131472.4.1445164635998.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <56237782.7090905@oracle.com> Do we send it to ICANN/NTIA with a cover saying that we find that it is complete and believe that it has achieved a community consensus, etc... or do we leave as understood our opinion of the meeting of the NTIA criteria? On 10/18/2015 6:37 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Daniel, > > fine. I just have some doubts about a notion in your para. 104, where you say "...the ICG will make a > final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal". To be accurate, I don't think we will "recommend" to NTIA to accept our Proposal, we will just send it to them, and they will decide whether to accept or not. In simple terms, our Transition Plan is in fact a recommendation. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 10:58:26 > Objet: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions > > > I tried to get recognised just before the break. > Here is what I was going to raise. Here is a, possibly incomplete, set > of language that refers to the dependency of the CWG proposal on the > accountability work: > > ------- > > 47 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG > will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it > considers the names proposal to be complete. > > 62 The ICG will seek confirmation that the CCWG final Work Stream 1 > proposal meets the CWG requirements. If the CCWG output does not meet > the needs as contemplated by the names proposal, the CWG has indicated > it will revise its proposal. Because of this dependency it is impossible > for the ICG to conclude its assessment of the accountability mechanisms > with regards to the names functions at this time. > > 104 After the finalization of CCWG Work Stream 1, the ICG will make a > final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the > transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described > above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition > proposal. > > X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the > condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability > mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working > Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as > specified in the names proposal. > > X014 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG > will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it > considers the names proposal to be complete. > > ----- > > This has sufficient variation to be confusing. > I strongly feel that we need to be consistent and as clear as possible > in what we write about this dependency. > > All we have committed to is for the CWG to say that they the > accountability work meets their requirements. Maybe we should say just > that and avoid all the variety in this language? > > Daniel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From apb at cequrux.com Sun Oct 18 10:42:28 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:42:28 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <562358B5.1090809@ripe.net> References: <562358B5.1090809@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20151018104228.GB807@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > I understand that some want us to stay around to keep everyone, > specifically ICANN, honest during implementation. > > Our current charter does not cover this. This requires a > re-charter. Something like "Regularly compile information > about the state of the transition and report it to the Internet > community." I believe that it would make sense for the ICG to have some sort of monitoring and reporting role during implementation. Something like ticking off items on a to-do list and publishing the status. However, I think that that is outside the ICG's charter, so the ICG should not unilaterally take that role. > If the OCs actually manage to ask us to do this as a group or > with coordinated language it would be strong evidence of their > ability to coordinate. > > Would this be a way forward? If the OCs were to ask the ICG to do that, then it would probably be OK. --apb (Alan Barrett) From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 10:45:59 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:45:59 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <23131472.4.1445164635998.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <23131472.4.1445164635998.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <56237867.3070208@ripe.net> Misunderstanding: These are quotes from our current draft; not what I am proposing we say. In fact I have similar doubts and that prompted me to point this out. See my subsequent message for what I propose we *do* say. Daniel On 18.10.15 12:37 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Daniel, > > fine. I just have some doubts about a notion in your para. 104, where you say "...the ICG will make a > final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal". To be accurate, I don't think we will "recommend" to NTIA to accept our Proposal, we will just send it to them, and they will decide whether to accept or not. In simple terms, our Transition Plan is in fact a recommendation. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 10:58:26 > Objet: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions > > > I tried to get recognised just before the break. > Here is what I was going to raise. Here is a, possibly incomplete, set > of language that refers to the dependency of the CWG proposal on the > accountability work: > > ------- > > 47 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG > will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it > considers the names proposal to be complete. > > 62 The ICG will seek confirmation that the CCWG final Work Stream 1 > proposal meets the CWG requirements. If the CCWG output does not meet > the needs as contemplated by the names proposal, the CWG has indicated > it will revise its proposal. Because of this dependency it is impossible > for the ICG to conclude its assessment of the accountability mechanisms > with regards to the names functions at this time. > > 104 After the finalization of CCWG Work Stream 1, the ICG will make a > final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the > transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described > above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition > proposal. > > X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the > condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability > mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working > Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as > specified in the names proposal. > > X014 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG > will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it > considers the names proposal to be complete. > > ----- > > This has sufficient variation to be confusing. > I strongly feel that we need to be consistent and as clear as possible > in what we write about this dependency. > > All we have committed to is for the CWG to say that they the > accountability work meets their requirements. Maybe we should say just > that and avoid all the variety in this language? > > Daniel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 18 10:46:51 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:46:51 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <20151018104228.GB807@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <17287879.20.1445165206508.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Alan & All, in line with my remarks on this subject (yesterday and this morning), I suggest we send a single message to ALL our communities, not differentiating OCs and non-OCs. Reason: whereas I agree that implementation will be carried out by the OCs, the consequences of implementation will affect ALL our communities. And this would be consistent with our Charter provisions, which I referred to this morning. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alan Barrett" À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 11:42:28 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > I understand that some want us to stay around to keep everyone, > specifically ICANN, honest during implementation. > > Our current charter does not cover this. This requires a > re-charter. Something like "Regularly compile information > about the state of the transition and report it to the Internet > community." I believe that it would make sense for the ICG to have some sort of monitoring and reporting role during implementation. Something like ticking off items on a to-do list and publishing the status. However, I think that that is outside the ICG's charter, so the ICG should not unilaterally take that role. > If the OCs actually manage to ask us to do this as a group or > with coordinated language it would be strong evidence of their > ability to coordinate. > > Would this be a way forward? If the OCs were to ask the ICG to do that, then it would probably be OK. --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Sun Oct 18 10:56:34 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:56:34 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here is a word version of the text that is the proposed 02. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 02-History-Background.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 118565 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk Sun Oct 18 11:01:47 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:01:47 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Issue resolution mechanisms Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7A42C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> In paragraph 107 of v4 I took away an action on the eighth bullet, "Establishment of issue resolution mechanisms for complaints and problems related to the naming functions". The relevant sections of the CWG proposal are (I think) the Customer Standing Committee, customer complaint resolution (Annex I) and problem resolution process (Annex J). In that framework, the wording is ok, if not very precise. The processes are those directly related to the performance of the IANA functions operator and an ability to put right errors or the IANA functions operator going out of mandate. As such I wonder whether a small clarification would perhaps help: "Establishment of issue resolution mechanisms for complaints and problems related to actions relating to the operation of the naming functions". I'd welcome views. Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From epusp75 at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 11:03:04 2015 From: epusp75 at gmail.com (demi getschko) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:03:04 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ok for me. thanks demi On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > Here is a word version of the text that is the proposed 02. > > Patrik > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 11:24:35 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:24:35 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <17287879.20.1445165206508.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <17287879.20.1445165206508.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <56238173.9010003@ripe.net> On 18.10.15 12:46 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Alan & All, > > in line with my remarks on this subject (yesterday and this morning), I suggest we send a single message to ALL our communities, not differentiating OCs and non-OCs. Reason: whereas I agree that implementation will be carried out by the OCs, the consequences of implementation will affect ALL our communities. And this would be consistent with our Charter provisions, which I referred to this morning. > > Jean-Jacques. Jean-Jaques, That is why I wrote "In response to our statement the OCs *and others* could ask us on their own initiative to do something in addition ...." I remain opposed against a formal statement from us asking "What else should we do?". If there is a real need we will get asked without asking for it. Daniel From alissa at cooperw.in Sun Oct 18 11:25:02 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:25:02 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary Message-ID: <5381721A-7847-45FF-9244-4572EC0C6BB7@cooperw.in> I am going through to remove the mentions of the public comments in the executive summary. I have questions about two paragraphs that mention the public comments and whether we’re sure we want to remove them. The first is X005: "X005 The ICG sought public comment on the combined proposal and the final version presented here reflects comments received. The ICG received 157 comments on the combined proposal from a wide variety of stakeholders, including individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees, businesses and trade associations, civil society groups, governments, and others from all regions of the world." It strikes me that this is useful in the executive summary for those who may not read the full proposal, so they know that the public had an opportunity to comment. The other is X025, which is part of our assessment of whether the proposal has broad community support: "X025 The majority of commenters who submitted comments during the public comment period support the proposal. These commenters included individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees within the ICANN community, businesses and trade associations, civil society organizations, governments, and others from across all regions of the world. Thus community support for the combined proposal is broad both in diversity of interests and geography of origin. Furthermore, the consensus of the ICG in support of the proposal provides a powerful demonstration of the breadth of community support." In this case the public comments are a core basis of our conclusion here, so I was wondering whether we could leave this in the executive summary. Thank, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Sun Oct 18 11:34:07 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:34:07 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <562358B5.1090809@ripe.net> References: <562358B5.1090809@ripe.net> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2F2@ACCAN01.accan.local> Daniel *We* established our charter with a view that this was going to be a more smooth transition than it is turning out to be. I'm not convinced what we wrote is fully in line with what the community expected. There is an argument that says people expect this group (the ICG) to take a more prominent role in transition. To deny this is more that we haven't stepped up to the community expectations rather than it not being what we were asked to do. This group is a highly regarded group representative of the community as a whole. It has a significant level of trust and esteem. The community is looking to it to provide some shepherding of this proposal - or more specifically IANA - into its next phase. I doubt there is another group with the background, expertise and respect that could do it. But don't get me wrong. I'm *not* saying we should decide right now "unilaterally" (your word) to take on responsibility for the implementation, or even some form of project management, or issue tracking. I *am* saying we need to get instructions from the community about what they need and who they want to do it. The best way to get instructions is to ask for them. I would have thought the public forum was an excellent place to pose that question and Alissa framed it beautifully in our meeting today. Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2015 7:31 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts Let me take the role of arguing against group-think. It may help that I am not in Dublin at this time. ;-) I understand that some want us to stay around to keep everyone, specifically ICANN, honest during implementation. Our current charter does not cover this. This requires a re-charter. Something like "Regularly compile information about the state of the transition and report it to the Internet community." We should not change the charter on our own initiative. If we do that our credibility will be that of self-appointed vigilantes. Even formally asking "How can we help further?" looks pathetic to me and it certainly would weaken our credibility going forward. Therefore I propose that we should just publish the proposal and say that we are done and will hibernate until we get the OK to submit it and answer possible questions about it. In response to our statement the OCs and others could ask us on their own initiative to do something in addition like "Regularly compile information about the state of the transition and report it to the Internet community." The OCs might even offer material support for this additional work to fund part of the secretariat and/or travel. If that were to occur we would very likely agree to do that and our mandate and credibility doing this would be very very strong. If the OCs actually manage to ask us to do this as a group or with coordinated language it would be strong evidence of their ability to coordinate. Would this be a way forward? Daniel PS: While I am on it may I also suggest that we ask all three OCs whether it is OK to submit the proposal and not just the CWG. The optics of that look much better to me personally. _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Oct 18 11:37:33 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:37:33 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <56238173.9010003@ripe.net> References: <17287879.20.1445165206508.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <56238173.9010003@ripe.net> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2F3@ACCAN01.accan.local> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2015 10:25 PM >On 18.10.15 12:46 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> in line with my remarks on this subject (yesterday and this morning), I suggest we send a single message to ALL >> our communities, not differentiating OCs and non-OCs. Reason: whereas I agree that implementation will be >> carried out by the OCs, the consequences of implementation will affect ALL our communities. And this would >> be consistent with our Charter provisions, which I referred to this morning. > > Jean-Jacques. >That is why I wrote "In response to our statement the OCs *and others* could ask us on their own initiative to do something in addition ...." > >I remain opposed against a formal statement from us asking "What else should we do?". If there is a real need we will get asked without asking for it. Indeed Daniel, they will. But there is no harm in putting a timeslot on the agenda for them to have the discussion. The rest of the week is pretty packed. Narelle From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Sun Oct 18 11:38:55 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:38:55 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Transcript? Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2F4@ACCAN01.accan.local> Any chance we could get the transcript from today's meeting earlier than usual? It had a lot of links and text that I need to refer to in the review of the proposal. Thanks Narelle -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Sun Oct 18 11:55:24 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:55:24 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Transcript? In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2F4@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2F4@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <033301d1099b$e3b0f120$ab12d360$@icgsec.asia> Hi Narelle and all, I have attached a word copy of the live scribe text that was displaying during the meeting today. A huge caveat is that this is not the final version of transcript, and should not be used as an authoritative record of what was said. Please use this as just a rough reference for your purposes. We will be receiving the official transcript from ICANN support that can be published on the ICG web site at a later date. In addition, due to the Adobe Connect Room having been switched to a different link, we are also currently awaiting a copy of the chat transcript from today's session. This will be circulated as soon as we receive it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Narelle Clark Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 12:39 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Transcript? Any chance we could get the transcript from today's meeting earlier than usual? It had a lot of links and text that I need to refer to in the review of the proposal. Thanks Narelle -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Day 2 - Live scribe text.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 63392 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 11:56:28 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:56:28 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session Message-ID: <562388EC.9000506@ripe.net> Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support? Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming few weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can use the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. ICG does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord. Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. As to when exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate. We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal we would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 12:08:59 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:08:59 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2F2@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <562358B5.1090809@ripe.net> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2F2@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <56238BDB.30805@ripe.net> On 18.10.15 13:34 , Narelle Clark wrote: > > Daniel > *We* established our charter with a view that this was going to be a more smooth transition than it is turning out to be. I'm not convinced what we wrote is fully in line with what the community expected. > > There is an argument that says people expect this group (the ICG) to take a more prominent role in transition. To deny this is more that we haven't stepped up to the community expectations rather than it not being what we were asked to do. > > This group is a highly regarded group representative of the community as a whole. It has a significant level of trust and esteem. The community is looking to it to provide some shepherding of this proposal - or more specifically IANA - into its next phase. I doubt there is another group with the background, expertise and respect that could do it. > > But don't get me wrong. I'm *not* saying we should decide right now "unilaterally" (your word) to take on responsibility for the implementation, or even some form of project management, or issue tracking. I *am* saying we need to get instructions from the community about what they need and who they want to do it. > > The best way to get instructions is to ask for them. > > I would have thought the public forum was an excellent place to pose that question and Alissa framed it beautifully in our meeting today. I am hearing the argument for "a more prominent role in transition". As I said quite clearly, I have no objection to be asked. I have an objection to come on strong by asking too forcefully or formally because I feel This would damage our "trust and esteem". I have no objection to say in an engagement session "We consider ourselves done at the point the proposal is submitted and any remaining queries regarding it are resolved unless we hear strong, specific and widely supported suggestions otherwise." See also my suggestions for Q&A in a separate message. I have an strong objection to put out a statement that says "Please suggest an additional role for us in implementation." This is what I heard Alissa say and what I objected to. In fact I am against anything that sounds like a request for an extension of our mandate. The initiative *and the specifics* have to come from outside ICG. Daniel From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 12:12:57 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:12:57 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <56238BDB.30805@ripe.net> References: <562358B5.1090809@ripe.net> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2F2@ACCAN01.accan.local> <56238BDB.30805@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56238CC9.2010705@ripe.net> On 18.10.15 14:08 , Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > I have an strong objection to put out a statement that says "Please > suggest an additional role for us in implementation." This is what I > heard Alissa say and what I objected to. In fact I am against anything > that sounds like a request for an extension of our mandate. The > initiative *and the specifics* have to come from outside ICG. Quote from the transcript: "... THAT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT HOW TO ASK THE COMMUNITIES WHAT OUR ROLE SHOULD BE AS FAR AS IMPLEMENTATION ..." From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 18 12:25:06 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:25:06 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Issue resolution mechanisms In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7A42C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <14361884.80.1445171101962.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Martin, I agree with your idea, and suggest a slight tweaking: "“Establishment of mechanisms to resolve complaints and problems related to actions pertaining to the operation of the naming functions”. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Martin Boyle" À: "ICG" Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:01:47 Objet: [Internal-cg] Issue resolution mechanisms In paragraph 107 of v4 I took away an action on the eighth bullet, “Establishment of issue resolution mechanisms for complaints and problems related to the naming functions”. The relevant sections of the CWG proposal are (I think) the Customer Standing Committee, customer complaint resolution (Annex I) and problem resolution process (Annex J). In that framework, the wording is ok, if not very precise. The processes are those directly related to the performance of the IANA functions operator and an ability to put right errors or the IANA functions operator going out of mandate. As such I wonder whether a small clarification would perhaps help: “Establishment of issue resolution mechanisms for complaints and problems related to actions relating to the operation of the naming functions”. I’d welcome views. Martin _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 12:29:34 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:29:34 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2F3@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <17287879.20.1445165206508.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <56238173.9010003@ripe.net> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2F3@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <562390AE.2040307@ripe.net> On 18.10.15 13:37 , Narelle Clark wrote: > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2015 10:25 PM >> On 18.10.15 12:46 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>> in line with my remarks on this subject (yesterday and this morning), I suggest we send a single message to ALL >>> our communities, not differentiating OCs and non-OCs. Reason: whereas I agree that implementation will be >>> carried out by the OCs, the consequences of implementation will affect ALL our communities. And this would >>> be consistent with our Charter provisions, which I referred to this morning. >> >> Jean-Jacques. > >> That is why I wrote "In response to our statement the OCs *and others* could ask us on their own initiative to do something in addition ...." >> >> I remain opposed against a formal statement from us asking "What else should we do?". If there is a real need we will get asked without asking for it. > > > Indeed Daniel, they will. But there is no harm in putting a timeslot on the agenda for them to have the discussion. The rest of the week is pretty packed. This does not have to happen this week. In fact it would be far better if those proposing an additional mandate for ICG would take the time to agree on the specifics and gather wide support for it. That takes more time, effort, reflection and consultation than is available at ICANN week. I was quite serious earlier about how the case for an extension of our mandate would be stronger if some commitment for material support would be part of it too. And it would be even stronger if ICANN supported it which they may very well do after reflection if it has wide enough support. From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 18 12:34:02 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:34:02 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3960085.98.1445171642413.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Thanks Patrik for working on this so quickly. In the chat this morning, a colleague said "registries" was preferable to "resources", and also argued against "shared". In your latest draft, paragraph 1 speaks of "resources", but then in para 2 this becomes "shared resources". My concern is that we should be consistent throughout (either resources, or shared resources), so for para 2 may I suggest (my emphasis in UPPER CASE): "Some of the most important shared resources (USUALLY REFERRED TO AS registries) are Internet Protocol addresses, Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters. The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative coordinating TASKS for these and others. Each OF THESE RESOURCES is operated under a policy defined by a specific community, including THOSE KNOWN CURRENTLY AS THE Operational Communities (OCs). THE services THUS provided are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Function." Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "demi getschko" À: "Patrik Fältström" Cc: "ICG" Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:03:04 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 ok for me. thanks demi On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Patrik Fältström < paf at frobbit.se > wrote: Here is a word version of the text that is the proposed 02. Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 18 12:40:36 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:40:36 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary In-Reply-To: <5381721A-7847-45FF-9244-4572EC0C6BB7@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <2027100.111.1445172033778.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Alissa, agreed. I suggest we add, at the end of X005, along with the link, a brief practical indication such as "The Public Comment process and analysis is provided under (location in our Transition Plan)". Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:25:02 Objet: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary I am going through to remove the mentions of the public comments in the executive summary. I have questions about two paragraphs that mention the public comments and whether we’re sure we want to remove them. The first is X005: "X005 The ICG sought public comment on the combined proposal and the final version presented here reflects comments received. The ICG received 157 comments on the combined proposal from a wide variety of stakeholders, including individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees, businesses and trade associations, civil society groups, governments, and others from all regions of the world." It strikes me that this is useful in the executive summary for those who may not read the full proposal, so they know that the public had an opportunity to comment. The other is X025, which is part of our assessment of whether the proposal has broad community support: "X025 The majority of commenters who submitted comments during the public comment period support the proposal. These commenters included individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees within the ICANN community, businesses and trade associations, civil society organizations, governments, and others from across all regions of the world. Thus community support for the combined proposal is broad both in diversity of interests and geography of origin. Furthermore, the consensus of the ICG in support of the proposal provides a powerful demonstration of the breadth of community support." In this case the public comments are a core basis of our conclusion here, so I was wondering whether we could leave this in the executive summary. Thank, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 18 12:50:27 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:50:27 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <56238173.9010003@ripe.net> Message-ID: <1200403.112.1445172626354.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Thanks Daniel, - my request that there be a single message out to all our communities was, in fact, in answer to Alan, not to you ;-) . But I've noted your "and others"... - On what this thread calls "Re-chartering", I prefer we use a term with less legal portent, such as "Continuation of the ICG". I understand your reasons, but in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in favour of reaching out to our communities. We will have to be careful about the wording and avoid any self-serving call for a perpetuation or extension of ICG. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:24:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts On 18.10.15 12:46 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Alan & All, > > in line with my remarks on this subject (yesterday and this morning), I suggest we send a single message to ALL our communities, not differentiating OCs and non-OCs. Reason: whereas I agree that implementation will be carried out by the OCs, the consequences of implementation will affect ALL our communities. And this would be consistent with our Charter provisions, which I referred to this morning. > > Jean-Jacques. Jean-Jaques, That is why I wrote "In response to our statement the OCs *and others* could ask us on their own initiative to do something in addition ...." I remain opposed against a formal statement from us asking "What else should we do?". If there is a real need we will get asked without asking for it. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 18 12:58:12 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:58:12 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C2F2@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <29564732.113.1445173089070.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Narelle, You say "I'm not convinced what we wrote is fully in line with what the community expected". I'm not so sure, because *we* are the representatives of our communities, so if any of them had an issue with the Charter, they should have said so, either in a public statement, or through their representative(s) in the ICG. But I agree with the thrust of your email, we can take the initiative of approaching our communities (not only OCs, by the way) in question- rather than affirmation-mode. The wording will be important. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Narelle Clark" À: "Daniel Karrenberg" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:34:07 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts Daniel *We* established our charter with a view that this was going to be a more smooth transition than it is turning out to be. I'm not convinced what we wrote is fully in line with what the community expected. There is an argument that says people expect this group (the ICG) to take a more prominent role in transition. To deny this is more that we haven't stepped up to the community expectations rather than it not being what we were asked to do. This group is a highly regarded group representative of the community as a whole. It has a significant level of trust and esteem. The community is looking to it to provide some shepherding of this proposal - or more specifically IANA - into its next phase. I doubt there is another group with the background, expertise and respect that could do it. But don't get me wrong. I'm *not* saying we should decide right now "unilaterally" (your word) to take on responsibility for the implementation, or even some form of project management, or issue tracking. I *am* saying we need to get instructions from the community about what they need and who they want to do it. The best way to get instructions is to ask for them. I would have thought the public forum was an excellent place to pose that question and Alissa framed it beautifully in our meeting today. Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2015 7:31 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts Let me take the role of arguing against group-think. It may help that I am not in Dublin at this time. ;-) I understand that some want us to stay around to keep everyone, specifically ICANN, honest during implementation. Our current charter does not cover this. This requires a re-charter. Something like "Regularly compile information about the state of the transition and report it to the Internet community." We should not change the charter on our own initiative. If we do that our credibility will be that of self-appointed vigilantes. Even formally asking "How can we help further?" looks pathetic to me and it certainly would weaken our credibility going forward. Therefore I propose that we should just publish the proposal and say that we are done and will hibernate until we get the OK to submit it and answer possible questions about it. In response to our statement the OCs and others could ask us on their own initiative to do something in addition like "Regularly compile information about the state of the transition and report it to the Internet community." The OCs might even offer material support for this additional work to fund part of the secretariat and/or travel. If that were to occur we would very likely agree to do that and our mandate and credibility doing this would be very very strong. If the OCs actually manage to ask us to do this as a group or with coordinated language it would be strong evidence of their ability to coordinate. Would this be a way forward? Daniel PS: While I am on it may I also suggest that we ask all three OCs whether it is OK to submit the proposal and not just the CWG. The optics of that look much better to me personally. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 13:15:26 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:15:26 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56239B6E.7020904@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 PAtrik, I believe the included reads better and this bit is important enough to make it read well. So I offer these improvements. However if any part of these edits gives you any grief, just disregard and move on. Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWI5tuAAoJENDY5Emqa716lyMQALgvWnDsJrZqOmgvuuEdPcyN +xFRKXPI9P81PtMyeCaC+Ykh/xkQP31xLR0+0vUaH+jyRbpkFgOwFFin6QK3c1p+ DiNJ9OJWP2gW33RLaiv7PwMyHUKJjG8Rr00Dc/EadGaJt5UBjNUAyHP/mn5iN5Iq 5NxLVvvDFV/kjoyv2aar5D8nFB2/OCw5FdqU4YCc2nMLYRpnzzFzpzy4CNzuF7kM m0qHLCSroZUAQZDLbVnyjVhBCxwGytHrhM/jvun+g2Lg7MV7gkOJTvM0IA5wMdCU hCE+ku0CA2phHm722p7daMIT2uJRsR1mimLhYNuCcxtcF18+D2WpDqWaC372g13d IuEmwa1oQHUIEzSlYHBhpKYYAZXq62gQetMv1sKn7pAxnOSAWkuicje0l5XYummE ufCL6AvVxLkReSXVv9XYjphV+2ROzddJ0GtIRSWtro2//KOadEnP4CNVGfNd9gPI IJJmdgqbQahWyK9tP8naeuhefc60vKJO6tQ4xRvxDdn4AqoashjL8kHDQxaa/Xmo TJM/w/E1feXc7rJ62BPHXjvfcYwst+aNFGxTsjc3SJg0iD2TBemBIhDWDMc0/Y7V HsAhidhkpo35aJxn+h6MgyjFb2OH1YrrG5MTKwqGx7BUAEj0MAt80su0PTVI6qrr art814tTU8pQ8YIph8to =i8UU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 02-History-Background-dfk-nits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 121463 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 13:22:01 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:22:01 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <1200403.112.1445172626354.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> References: <1200403.112.1445172626354.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: <56239CF9.4050103@ripe.net> On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in favour of reaching out to our communities. ... It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. Daniel From Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk Sun Oct 18 13:24:15 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:24:15 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Issue resolution mechanisms In-Reply-To: <14361884.80.1445171101962.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7A42C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <14361884.80.1445171101962.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7A88F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> It has the advantage of increased brevity and removing the ungainly "... related to actions relating to..." I have no problems. Martin -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: 18 October 2015 13:25 To: Martin Boyle Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Issue resolution mechanisms Martin, I agree with your idea, and suggest a slight tweaking: "“Establishment of mechanisms to resolve complaints and problems related to actions pertaining to the operation of the naming functions”. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Martin Boyle" À: "ICG" Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:01:47 Objet: [Internal-cg] Issue resolution mechanisms In paragraph 107 of v4 I took away an action on the eighth bullet, “Establishment of issue resolution mechanisms for complaints and problems related to the naming functions”. The relevant sections of the CWG proposal are (I think) the Customer Standing Committee, customer complaint resolution (Annex I) and problem resolution process (Annex J). In that framework, the wording is ok, if not very precise. The processes are those directly related to the performance of the IANA functions operator and an ability to put right errors or the IANA functions operator going out of mandate. As such I wonder whether a small clarification would perhaps help: “Establishment of issue resolution mechanisms for complaints and problems related to actions relating to the operation of the naming functions”. I’d welcome views. Martin _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Sun Oct 18 13:36:46 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:36:46 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Issue resolution mechanisms In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7A88F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7A42C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <14361884.80.1445171101962.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7A88F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <1E710804-7B2B-493A-AF66-4FDA0B234F75@cooperw.in> Thanks, I will incorporate this change. > On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Martin Boyle wrote: > > It has the advantage of increased brevity and removing the ungainly "... related to actions relating to..." > > I have no problems. > > Martin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] > Sent: 18 October 2015 13:25 > To: Martin Boyle > Cc: ICG > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Issue resolution mechanisms > > Martin, > > I agree with your idea, and suggest a slight tweaking: > > "“Establishment of mechanisms to resolve complaints and problems related to actions pertaining to the operation of the naming functions”. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Martin Boyle" > À: "ICG" > Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:01:47 > Objet: [Internal-cg] Issue resolution mechanisms > > > > > > In paragraph 107 of v4 I took away an action on the eighth bullet, “Establishment of issue resolution mechanisms for complaints and problems related to the naming functions”. > > > > The relevant sections of the CWG proposal are (I think) the Customer Standing Committee, customer complaint resolution (Annex I) and problem resolution process (Annex J). In that framework, the wording is ok, if not very precise. The processes are those directly related to the performance of the IANA functions operator and an ability to put right errors or the IANA functions operator going out of mandate. > > > > As such I wonder whether a small clarification would perhaps help: “Establishment of issue resolution mechanisms for complaints and problems related to actions relating to the operation of the naming functions”. > > > > I’d welcome views. > > > > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 18 13:47:09 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:47:09 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <56239CF9.4050103@ripe.net> Message-ID: <8726874.134.1445176029561.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Daniel, it seems there is a difference in the way we perceived the discussion. Best, JJ. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 14:22:01 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in favour of reaching out to our communities. ... It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. Daniel From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sun Oct 18 13:59:59 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:59:59 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <56237867.3070208@ripe.net> References: <23131472.4.1445164635998.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <56237867.3070208@ripe.net> Message-ID: <24320EABCC604C10B18374342586B28E@WUKPC> I'm checking "IANA-transition-proposal-v4". Where can I find X013 and X014 Daniel is referring to? Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 12:45 PM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions Misunderstanding: These are quotes from our current draft; not what I am proposing we say. In fact I have similar doubts and that prompted me to point this out. See my subsequent message for what I propose we *do* say. Daniel On 18.10.15 12:37 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Daniel, > > fine. I just have some doubts about a notion in your para. 104, where you > say "...the ICG will make a > final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the > transition proposal". To be accurate, I don't think we will "recommend" to > NTIA to accept our Proposal, we will just send it to them, and they will > decide whether to accept or not. In simple terms, our Transition Plan is > in fact a recommendation. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 10:58:26 > Objet: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions > > > I tried to get recognised just before the break. > Here is what I was going to raise. Here is a, possibly incomplete, set > of language that refers to the dependency of the CWG proposal on the > accountability work: > > ------- > > 47 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG > will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it > considers the names proposal to be complete. > > 62 The ICG will seek confirmation that the CCWG final Work Stream 1 > proposal meets the CWG requirements. If the CCWG output does not meet > the needs as contemplated by the names proposal, the CWG has indicated > it will revise its proposal. Because of this dependency it is impossible > for the ICG to conclude its assessment of the accountability mechanisms > with regards to the names functions at this time. > > 104 After the finalization of CCWG Work Stream 1, the ICG will make a > final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the > transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described > above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition > proposal. > > X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the > condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability > mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working > Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as > specified in the names proposal. > > X014 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG > will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it > considers the names proposal to be complete. > > ----- > > This has sufficient variation to be confusing. > I strongly feel that we need to be consistent and as clear as possible > in what we write about this dependency. > > All we have committed to is for the CWG to say that they the > accountability work meets their requirements. Maybe we should say just > that and avoid all the variety in this language? > > Daniel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 14:03:46 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:03:46 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <24320EABCC604C10B18374342586B28E@WUKPC> References: <23131472.4.1445164635998.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <56237867.3070208@ripe.net> <24320EABCC604C10B18374342586B28E@WUKPC> Message-ID: <5623A6C2.2040204@ripe.net> Executive summary. Page 3. Daniel On 18.10.15 15:59 , WUKnoben wrote: > I'm checking "IANA-transition-proposal-v4". Where can I find X013 and > X014 Daniel is referring to? > > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 12:45 PM > To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions > > Misunderstanding: These are quotes from our current draft; not what I am > proposing we say. > > In fact I have similar doubts and that prompted me to point this out. > > See my subsequent message for what I propose we *do* say. > > Daniel > > On 18.10.15 12:37 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> Daniel, >> >> fine. I just have some doubts about a notion in your para. 104, where >> you say "...the ICG will make a >> final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the >> transition proposal". To be accurate, I don't think we will >> "recommend" to NTIA to accept our Proposal, we will just send it to >> them, and they will decide whether to accept or not. In simple terms, >> our Transition Plan is in fact a recommendation. >> >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >> À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" >> Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 10:58:26 >> Objet: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions >> >> >> I tried to get recognised just before the break. >> Here is what I was going to raise. Here is a, possibly incomplete, set >> of language that refers to the dependency of the CWG proposal on the >> accountability work: >> >> ------- >> >> 47 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG >> will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. >> At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it >> considers the names proposal to be complete. >> >> 62 The ICG will seek confirmation that the CCWG final Work Stream 1 >> proposal meets the CWG requirements. If the CCWG output does not meet >> the needs as contemplated by the names proposal, the CWG has indicated >> it will revise its proposal. Because of this dependency it is impossible >> for the ICG to conclude its assessment of the accountability mechanisms >> with regards to the names functions at this time. >> >> 104 After the finalization of CCWG Work Stream 1, the ICG will make a >> final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the >> transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described >> above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition >> proposal. >> >> X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the >> condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability >> mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working >> Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as >> specified in the names proposal. >> >> X014 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG >> will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. >> At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it >> considers the names proposal to be complete. >> >> ----- >> >> This has sufficient variation to be confusing. >> I strongly feel that we need to be consistent and as clear as possible >> in what we write about this dependency. >> >> All we have committed to is for the CWG to say that they the >> accountability work meets their requirements. Maybe we should say just >> that and avoid all the variety in this language? >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sun Oct 18 14:04:55 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:04:55 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions Message-ID: <84F5D31EAA1744CA9503CA6A22B66440@WUKPC> Ok, got it - from the Executive Summary! Using the brain as a search engine may sometimes be of advantage... Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: WUKnoben Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 3:59 PM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques ; Daniel Karrenberg Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions I'm checking "IANA-transition-proposal-v4". Where can I find X013 and X014 Daniel is referring to? Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 12:45 PM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions Misunderstanding: These are quotes from our current draft; not what I am proposing we say. In fact I have similar doubts and that prompted me to point this out. See my subsequent message for what I propose we *do* say. Daniel On 18.10.15 12:37 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Daniel, > > fine. I just have some doubts about a notion in your para. 104, where you > say "...the ICG will make a > final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the > transition proposal". To be accurate, I don't think we will "recommend" to > NTIA to accept our Proposal, we will just send it to them, and they will > decide whether to accept or not. In simple terms, our Transition Plan is > in fact a recommendation. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 10:58:26 > Objet: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions > > > I tried to get recognised just before the break. > Here is what I was going to raise. Here is a, possibly incomplete, set > of language that refers to the dependency of the CWG proposal on the > accountability work: > > ------- > > 47 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG > will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it > considers the names proposal to be complete. > > 62 The ICG will seek confirmation that the CCWG final Work Stream 1 > proposal meets the CWG requirements. If the CCWG output does not meet > the needs as contemplated by the names proposal, the CWG has indicated > it will revise its proposal. Because of this dependency it is impossible > for the ICG to conclude its assessment of the accountability mechanisms > with regards to the names functions at this time. > > 104 After the finalization of CCWG Work Stream 1, the ICG will make a > final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the > transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described > above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition > proposal. > > X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the > condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability > mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working > Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as > specified in the names proposal. > > X014 Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG > will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it > considers the names proposal to be complete. > > ----- > > This has sufficient variation to be confusing. > I strongly feel that we need to be consistent and as clear as possible > in what we write about this dependency. > > All we have committed to is for the CWG to say that they the > accountability work meets their requirements. Maybe we should say just > that and avoid all the variety in this language? > > Daniel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sun Oct 18 14:11:18 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:11:18 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in theexecutive summary In-Reply-To: <2027100.111.1445172033778.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> References: <2027100.111.1445172033778.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: <07A616D25EF8407489A28EBCEF776DF8@WUKPC> I also agree. Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 2:40 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in theexecutive summary Alissa, agreed. I suggest we add, at the end of X005, along with the link, a brief practical indication such as "The Public Comment process and analysis is provided under (location in our Transition Plan)". Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:25:02 Objet: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary I am going through to remove the mentions of the public comments in the executive summary. I have questions about two paragraphs that mention the public comments and whether we’re sure we want to remove them. The first is X005: "X005 The ICG sought public comment on the combined proposal and the final version presented here reflects comments received. The ICG received 157 comments on the combined proposal from a wide variety of stakeholders, including individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees, businesses and trade associations, civil society groups, governments, and others from all regions of the world." It strikes me that this is useful in the executive summary for those who may not read the full proposal, so they know that the public had an opportunity to comment. The other is X025, which is part of our assessment of whether the proposal has broad community support: "X025 The majority of commenters who submitted comments during the public comment period support the proposal. These commenters included individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees within the ICANN community, businesses and trade associations, civil society organizations, governments, and others from across all regions of the world. Thus community support for the combined proposal is broad both in diversity of interests and geography of origin. Furthermore, the consensus of the ICG in support of the proposal provides a powerful demonstration of the breadth of community support." In this case the public comments are a core basis of our conclusion here, so I was wondering whether we could leave this in the executive summary. Thank, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Sun Oct 18 14:27:07 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:27:07 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 In-Reply-To: <56239B6E.7020904@ripe.net> References: <56239B6E.7020904@ripe.net> Message-ID: <7E157D81-EADD-4627-BEAD-BE742439A334@cooperw.in> I’ve made some additional edits for clarity and consistency of terminology in the attached. Secretariat, could you make sure all of the versions of this get posted to Dropbox? Thanks, Alissa > On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > Signed PGP part > PAtrik, > > I believe the included reads better and this bit is important enough > to make it read well. So I offer these improvements. However if any > part of these edits gives you any grief, just disregard and move on. > > Daniel > > <02-History-Background-dfk-nits.docx>_______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 02-History-Background-dfk-nits-ALC.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 127813 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Sun Oct 18 14:29:52 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:29:52 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <56236F3D.1090607@ripe.net> References: <56236D42.8070309@ripe.net> <56236F3D.1090607@ripe.net> Message-ID: <024D2ADC-70F3-4D02-A7F7-7FBD152C5FB8@cooperw.in> I’m fine with making these changes and adjusting the language in all the relevant places in Part 0 accordingly. Alissa > On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > And here is what I propose we say: > > > X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the > condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability > mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working > Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as > specified in the names proposal. > > X014 Before submitting this proposal the ICG will seek confirmation > from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > > > and shorten the language in the other paragraphs in line with this. > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 18 14:41:15 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:41:15 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 In-Reply-To: <7E157D81-EADD-4627-BEAD-BE742439A334@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <9729102.169.1445179270641.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Thanks Alissa, this suits me. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Daniel Karrenberg" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 15:27:07 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 I’ve made some additional edits for clarity and consistency of terminology in the attached. Secretariat, could you make sure all of the versions of this get posted to Dropbox? Thanks, Alissa On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net > wrote: Signed PGP part PAtrik, I believe the included reads better and this bit is important enough to make it read well. So I offer these improvements. However if any part of these edits gives you any grief, just disregard and move on. Daniel <02-History-Background-dfk-nits.docx> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 14:46:24 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:46:24 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 In-Reply-To: <7E157D81-EADD-4627-BEAD-BE742439A334@cooperw.in> References: <56239B6E.7020904@ripe.net> <7E157D81-EADD-4627-BEAD-BE742439A334@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <5623B0C0.6090400@ripe.net> All improvements. This reads quite well now. Daniel On 18.10.15 16:27 , Alissa Cooper wrote: > I’ve made some additional edits for clarity and consistency of > terminology in the attached. > > Secretariat, could you make sure all of the versions of this get posted > to Dropbox? > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > > >> On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >> > wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> PAtrik, >> >> I believe the included reads better and this bit is important enough >> to make it read well. So I offer these improvements. However if any >> part of these edits gives you any grief, just disregard and move on. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> <02-History-Background-dfk-nits.docx>_______________________________________________ >> 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 Sun Oct 18 14:53:33 2015 From: fmniebel at gmail.com (michael niebel) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:53:33 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <562388EC.9000506@ripe.net> References: <562388EC.9000506@ripe.net> Message-ID: Answer 3 para 1 misses out on our agreement that the ICG will stay in place/ for consultation (until September 30. 2016/availability until approval by NTIA) i.e. no dissolution but what we used to call "hibernation" with e.g. keeping the list alive. . Michael On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote: > > > Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem > straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support? > > > Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? > > A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming few > weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their > requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the > parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can use > the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. > > > Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. > > A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. ICG > does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord. > > > Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? > > A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission > to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their > requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. As to when > exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. > > > Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? > > A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few > weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements > regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel > accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will > submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible > queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate. > > We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported > requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss > them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal we > would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 18 15:01:26 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:01:26 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <562388EC.9000506@ripe.net> Message-ID: <25404696.189.1445180484977.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Many thanks Daniel. Quick remarks: Q2, suggested answer, at the end should read "on its own INITIATIVE" (instead of ACCORD). Q3, I am worried by the suggested answer because the verb "to change" begs various interpretations: "If there were any requests from the OCs TO CHANGE the proposal we would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now." Are we really prepared -and more importantly, does our mandate allow/require us- to CHANGE the Transition Plan AFTER we have sent it to the NTIA? Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:56:28 Objet: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support? Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming few weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can use the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. ICG does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord. Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. As to when exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate. We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal we would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 18 15:02:56 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:02:56 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <25404696.189.1445180484977.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: <23315297.194.1445180572547.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Sorry Daniel, in my latest email, please read at the end Q4 (instead of Q3). Thanks. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" À: "Daniel Karrenberg" Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 16:01:26 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session Many thanks Daniel. Quick remarks: Q2, suggested answer, at the end should read "on its own INITIATIVE" (instead of ACCORD). Q3, I am worried by the suggested answer because the verb "to change" begs various interpretations: "If there were any requests from the OCs TO CHANGE the proposal we would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now." Are we really prepared -and more importantly, does our mandate allow/require us- to CHANGE the Transition Plan AFTER we have sent it to the NTIA? Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:56:28 Objet: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support? Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming few weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can use the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. ICG does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord. Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. As to when exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate. We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal we would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk Sun Oct 18 15:16:43 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:16:43 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary In-Reply-To: <5381721A-7847-45FF-9244-4572EC0C6BB7@cooperw.in> References: <5381721A-7847-45FF-9244-4572EC0C6BB7@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7ACA0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> I’d say good catch! Both would seem reasonable for retention. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 18 October 2015 12:25 To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary I am going through to remove the mentions of the public comments in the executive summary. I have questions about two paragraphs that mention the public comments and whether we’re sure we want to remove them. The first is X005: "X005 The ICG sought public comment on the combined proposal and the final version presented here reflects comments received. The ICG received 157 comments on the combined proposal from a wide variety of stakeholders, including individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees, businesses and trade associations, civil society groups, governments, and others from all regions of the world." It strikes me that this is useful in the executive summary for those who may not read the full proposal, so they know that the public had an opportunity to comment. The other is X025, which is part of our assessment of whether the proposal has broad community support: "X025 The majority of commenters who submitted comments during the public comment period support the proposal. These commenters included individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees within the ICANN community, businesses and trade associations, civil society organizations, governments, and others from across all regions of the world. Thus community support for the combined proposal is broad both in diversity of interests and geography of origin. Furthermore, the consensus of the ICG in support of the proposal provides a powerful demonstration of the breadth of community support." In this case the public comments are a core basis of our conclusion here, so I was wondering whether we could leave this in the executive summary. Thank, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Sun Oct 18 15:32:55 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:32:55 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 In-Reply-To: <7E157D81-EADD-4627-BEAD-BE742439A334@cooperw.in> References: <56239B6E.7020904@ripe.net> <7E157D81-EADD-4627-BEAD-BE742439A334@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <03b901d109ba$449ef450$cddcdcf0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, All 3 versions of this text is now on Dropbox, short links below: v0 (Patrik's original email, now in word format) http://icgsec.asia/1LXYU2q v1 (Patrik and Lynn's revision as discussed during the meeting today) http://icgsec.asia/1OCdkG6 v1-dfk-nits-ALC (Alissa and Daniel's version circulated on this email chain): http://icgsec.asia/1LioPP4 Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 3:27 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suggested New 02 I've made some additional edits for clarity and consistency of terminology in the attached. Secretariat, could you make sure all of the versions of this get posted to Dropbox? Thanks, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Sun Oct 18 16:09:23 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 17:09:23 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft slides for Monday engagement session In-Reply-To: <8F8CCD44-736B-461A-8152-67B6EFF6779E@cooperw.in> References: <8F8CCD44-736B-461A-8152-67B6EFF6779E@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <8EB9D23C-A6BE-4E78-92C1-78773C229287@cooperw.in> Updated slides 7 and 8 to reflect our discussions over the last two days. I kept this to the minimum key take-aways — we can of course provide more detail and refinement when we’re on the podium and in response to questions. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-ICANN54-v2.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 311606 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > On Oct 13, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Feedback is appreciated on these. Slide 7 and 8 are TBD depending how discussion continues on the list this week and in our meetings on the weekend. > > Alissa > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 18:52:11 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:52:11 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: References: <562388EC.9000506@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5623EA5B.4090908@ripe.net> Revised Q&A suggestions incorporating to suggestions from Michael and Jean-Jaques. It would be helpful if ICG members confirmed if this represents our current consensus. Suggestions for improvement welcome. Daniel Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming few weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can use the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. ICG does not plan to make any revisions out of its own initiative. Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. As to when exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will submit the proposal. This will complete our mandate. The ICG plans to remain constituted until September 2016 in order to respond to any queries about the proposal. The ICG has no plans to do anything beyond submitting the proposal. If there were widely supported requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal we would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Oct 18 18:59:56 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:59:56 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <25404696.189.1445180484977.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> References: <25404696.189.1445180484977.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: <5623EC2C.1000300@ripe.net> On 18.10.15 17:01 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > Are we really prepared -and more importantly, does our mandate allow/require us- to CHANGE the Transition Plan AFTER we have sent it to the NTIA? Jean-Jaques, There is a scenario where NTIA might suggest changes to us and via us to the OCs. If the OCs react to that and make changes to their input to us I consider it to be within our current mandate and charter to apply the same process we have used thus far to produce a revised proposal. In my mind this is very much more clearly in our mandate than playing a role in implementation. In fact I see little alternatives to using the ICG process to make any such revisions should they be required. I consider this an unlikely, yet possible scenario. I hope very much that this scenario will not occur. Hence I have not adapted the language. If this remains an issue I would welcome alternative words. Daniel > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:56:28 > Objet: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session > > > > Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem > straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support? > > > Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? > > A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming few > weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their > requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the > parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can use > the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. > > > Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. > > A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. ICG > does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord. > > > Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? > > A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission > to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their > requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. As to when > exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. > > > Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? > > A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few > weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements > regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel > accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will > submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible > queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate. > > We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported > requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss > them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal we > would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > From mnuduma at yahoo.com Mon Oct 19 04:50:39 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 04:50:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <024D2ADC-70F3-4D02-A7F7-7FBD152C5FB8@cooperw.in> References: <024D2ADC-70F3-4D02-A7F7-7FBD152C5FB8@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <765293269.2273784.1445230239596.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> +1 Mary Uduma On Sunday, October 18, 2015 3:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: I’m fine with making these changes and adjusting the language in all the relevant places in Part 0 accordingly. Alissa > On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > And here is what I propose we say: > > > X013    The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the > condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability > mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working > Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as > specified in the names proposal. > > X014    Before submitting this proposal the ICG will seek confirmation > from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > > > and shorten the language in the other paragraphs in line with this. > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon Oct 19 05:36:07 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 01:36:07 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <5623EA5B.4090908@ripe.net> References: <562388EC.9000506@ripe.net> <5623EA5B.4090908@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5EF6F6BC-018B-4519-96D1-F77CF21D8EAB@oracle.com> In the first question I Am mindful of the concern some had with publish and final as words not to use before the CWG confirmation. Perhaps saying: we will shortly complete all revisions on our current draft based on public comments and OC responses. The draft will be made available as part of the Dublin conference reporting or shortly thereafter. At that point we will only be waiting on CWG confirmation.... Joe Sent from my iPad > On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:52 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > Revised Q&A suggestions incorporating to suggestions from Michael and > Jean-Jaques. It would be helpful if ICG members confirmed if this > represents our current consensus. Suggestions for improvement welcome. > > Daniel > > > Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? > > A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming few > weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their > requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the > parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can use > the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. > > > Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. > > A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. ICG > does not plan to make any revisions out of its own initiative. > > > Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? > > A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission > to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their > requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. As to when > exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. > > > Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? > > A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few > weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements > regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel > accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will > submit the proposal. This will complete our mandate. The ICG plans to > remain constituted until September 2016 in order to respond to any > queries about the proposal. > > The ICG has no plans to do anything beyond submitting the proposal. If > there were widely supported requests to extend our mandate and charter > we would of course discuss them. If there were any requests from the OCs > to change the proposal we would be available to coordinate this as we > have done until now. > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon Oct 19 05:41:59 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 01:41:59 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <5623EC2C.1000300@ripe.net> References: <25404696.189.1445180484977.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <5623EC2C.1000300@ripe.net> Message-ID: <439E81FC-7B73-4AF6-83F9-535FF082C5F2@oracle.com> I understand our role to exist until the acceptance of the proposal not just its submission. But in that time only NTIA would be in a position of sending it back to us for specific work... Any other scenario does not serve the collective interests of the stakeholders who sent us here.... Agree with Jean-Jacques that I hope not to find out... Joe Sent from my iPad > On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > >> On 18.10.15 17:01 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> >> Are we really prepared -and more importantly, does our mandate allow/require us- to CHANGE the Transition Plan AFTER we have sent it to the NTIA? > > Jean-Jaques, > > There is a scenario where NTIA might suggest changes to us and via us to > the OCs. If the OCs react to that and make changes to their input to us > I consider it to be within our current mandate and charter to apply the > same process we have used thus far to produce a revised proposal. In my > mind this is very much more clearly in our mandate than playing a role > in implementation. In fact I see little alternatives to using the ICG > process to make any such revisions should they be required. > > I consider this an unlikely, yet possible scenario. I hope very much > that this scenario will not occur. > > Hence I have not adapted the language. If this remains an issue I would > welcome alternative words. > > > Daniel > > >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >> À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" >> Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:56:28 >> Objet: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session >> >> >> >> Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem >> straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support? >> >> >> Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? >> >> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming few >> weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their >> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the >> parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can use >> the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. >> >> >> Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. >> >> A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. ICG >> does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord. >> >> >> Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? >> >> A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission >> to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their >> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. As to when >> exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. >> >> >> Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? >> >> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few >> weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements >> regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel >> accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will >> submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible >> queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate. >> >> We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported >> requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss >> them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal we >> would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Oct 19 05:45:03 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 06:45:03 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] pie chart Message-ID: With many thanks to Lynn for her work on this, please have a look at slide 4 in the attached. She re-did analysis of every comment. If you cannot live with us showing this during the engagement session, please send mail to the list by 10:30am today. Thanks, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-ICANN54-v3-with-chart.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 360054 bytes Desc: not available URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Mon Oct 19 06:22:17 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:22:17 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7ACA0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <5381721A-7847-45FF-9244-4572EC0C6BB7@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7ACA0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C404@ACCAN01.accan.local> I agree with keeping these items in the executive summary as that is what they are doing: summarising the activity. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 18 October 2015 12:25 To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary I am going through to remove the mentions of the public comments in the executive summary. I have questions about two paragraphs that mention the public comments and whether we’re sure we want to remove them. The first is X005: "X005 The ICG sought public comment on the combined proposal and the final version presented here reflects comments received. The ICG received 157 comments on the combined proposal from a wide variety of stakeholders, including individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees, businesses and trade associations, civil society groups, governments, and others from all regions of the world." It strikes me that this is useful in the executive summary for those who may not read the full proposal, so they know that the public had an opportunity to comment. The other is X025, which is part of our assessment of whether the proposal has broad community support: "X025 The majority of commenters who submitted comments during the public comment period support the proposal. These commenters included individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees within the ICANN community, businesses and trade associations, civil society organizations, governments, and others from across all regions of the world. Thus community support for the combined proposal is broad both in diversity of interests and geography of origin. Furthermore, the consensus of the ICG in support of the proposal provides a powerful demonstration of the breadth of community support." In this case the public comments are a core basis of our conclusion here, so I was wondering whether we could leave this in the executive summary. Thank, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Mon Oct 19 06:28:31 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:28:31 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] pie chart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <31034433.328.1445236109699.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Many thanks Lynn. Suggestion: separate pie and statistics, so as to avoid visual overlap. This will make it easier to read and comprehend slide 4. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 06:45:03 Objet: [Internal-cg] pie chart With many thanks to Lynn for her work on this, please have a look at slide 4 in the attached. She re-did analysis of every comment. If you cannot live with us showing this during the engagement session, please send mail to the list by 10:30am today. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Oct 19 06:31:05 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:31:05 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <439E81FC-7B73-4AF6-83F9-535FF082C5F2@oracle.com> References: <25404696.189.1445180484977.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <5623EC2C.1000300@ripe.net> <439E81FC-7B73-4AF6-83F9-535FF082C5F2@oracle.com> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C407@ACCAN01.accan.local> Indeed! And agree with Joe and Jean-Jacques Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Monday, 19 October 2015 4:42 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session I understand our role to exist until the acceptance of the proposal not just its submission. But in that time only NTIA would be in a position of sending it back to us for specific work... Any other scenario does not serve the collective interests of the stakeholders who sent us here.... Agree with Jean-Jacques that I hope not to find out... Joe Sent from my iPad > On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > >> On 18.10.15 17:01 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> >> Are we really prepared -and more importantly, does our mandate allow/require us- to CHANGE the Transition Plan AFTER we have sent it to the NTIA? > > Jean-Jaques, > > There is a scenario where NTIA might suggest changes to us and via us > to the OCs. If the OCs react to that and make changes to their input > to us I consider it to be within our current mandate and charter to > apply the same process we have used thus far to produce a revised > proposal. In my mind this is very much more clearly in our mandate > than playing a role in implementation. In fact I see little > alternatives to using the ICG process to make any such revisions should they be required. > > I consider this an unlikely, yet possible scenario. I hope very much > that this scenario will not occur. > > Hence I have not adapted the language. If this remains an issue I > would welcome alternative words. > > > Daniel > > >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >> À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" >> Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:56:28 >> Objet: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session >> >> >> >> Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem >> straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support? >> >> >> Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? >> >> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming >> few weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their >> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the >> parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can >> use the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. >> >> >> Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. >> >> A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. >> ICG does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord. >> >> >> Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? >> >> A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for >> transmission to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG >> that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. >> As to when exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. >> >> >> Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? >> >> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few >> weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements >> regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel >> accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will >> submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible >> queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate. >> >> We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported >> requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss >> them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal >> we would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Mon Oct 19 06:31:28 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:31:28 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C404@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <5881111.338.1445236285569.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Alissa, as indicated in a previous email, I agree with this first indication about Public Comments, and suggested that at the end of your proposed text in X005, you insert a link. Thanks. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Narelle Clark" À: "Alissa Cooper" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 07:22:17 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary I agree with keeping these items in the executive summary as that is what they are doing: summarising the activity. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 18 October 2015 12:25 To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary I am going through to remove the mentions of the public comments in the executive summary. I have questions about two paragraphs that mention the public comments and whether we’re sure we want to remove them. The first is X005: "X005 The ICG sought public comment on the combined proposal and the final version presented here reflects comments received. The ICG received 157 comments on the combined proposal from a wide variety of stakeholders, including individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees, businesses and trade associations, civil society groups, governments, and others from all regions of the world." It strikes me that this is useful in the executive summary for those who may not read the full proposal, so they know that the public had an opportunity to comment. The other is X025, which is part of our assessment of whether the proposal has broad community support: "X025 The majority of commenters who submitted comments during the public comment period support the proposal. These commenters included individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees within the ICANN community, businesses and trade associations, civil society organizations, governments, and others from across all regions of the world. Thus community support for the combined proposal is broad both in diversity of interests and geography of origin. Furthermore, the consensus of the ICG in support of the proposal provides a powerful demonstration of the breadth of community support." In this case the public comments are a core basis of our conclusion here, so I was wondering whether we could leave this in the executive summary. Thank, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Mon Oct 19 06:36:58 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:36:58 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <439E81FC-7B73-4AF6-83F9-535FF082C5F2@oracle.com> Message-ID: <12862386.339.1445236618040.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Daniel, Joseph & All, my position is well reflected in Joseph's latest remark, below. Daniel, while agreeing that we may be required to MODIFY the Transition Plan after having sent it to NTIA, I would repeat, like Joseph, that such tasking would/can only come from NTIA, not from our communities. The possibility of a continuation of ICG is a separate issue, for which I recommend that we consult our communities (ALL our communities, not just the OCs). Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Joseph Alhadeff" À: "Daniel Karrenberg" Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 06:41:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session I understand our role to exist until the acceptance of the proposal not just its submission. But in that time only NTIA would be in a position of sending it back to us for specific work... Any other scenario does not serve the collective interests of the stakeholders who sent us here.... Agree with Jean-Jacques that I hope not to find out... Joe Sent from my iPad > On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > >> On 18.10.15 17:01 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> >> Are we really prepared -and more importantly, does our mandate allow/require us- to CHANGE the Transition Plan AFTER we have sent it to the NTIA? > > Jean-Jaques, > > There is a scenario where NTIA might suggest changes to us and via us to > the OCs. If the OCs react to that and make changes to their input to us > I consider it to be within our current mandate and charter to apply the > same process we have used thus far to produce a revised proposal. In my > mind this is very much more clearly in our mandate than playing a role > in implementation. In fact I see little alternatives to using the ICG > process to make any such revisions should they be required. > > I consider this an unlikely, yet possible scenario. I hope very much > that this scenario will not occur. > > Hence I have not adapted the language. If this remains an issue I would > welcome alternative words. > > > Daniel > > >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >> À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" >> Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:56:28 >> Objet: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session >> >> >> >> Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem >> straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support? >> >> >> Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? >> >> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming few >> weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their >> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the >> parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can use >> the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. >> >> >> Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. >> >> A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. ICG >> does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord. >> >> >> Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? >> >> A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission >> to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their >> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. As to when >> exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. >> >> >> Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? >> >> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few >> weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements >> regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel >> accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will >> submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible >> queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate. >> >> We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported >> requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss >> them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal we >> would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Mon Oct 19 06:38:39 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:38:39 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <765293269.2273784.1445230239596.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <11555111.344.1445236714854.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Thanks Daniel & Alissa, fine with me. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Mary Uduma" À: "Alissa Cooper" , "Daniel Karrenberg" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 05:50:39 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions +1 Mary Uduma On Sunday, October 18, 2015 3:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: I’m fine with making these changes and adjusting the language in all the relevant places in Part 0 accordingly. Alissa > On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net > wrote: > > > And here is what I propose we say: > > > X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the > condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability > mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working > Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as > specified in the names proposal. > > X014 Before submitting this proposal the ICG will seek confirmation > from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > > > and shorten the language in the other paragraphs in line with this. > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm..ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Mon Oct 19 06:51:58 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:51:58 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <5623EA5B.4090908@ripe.net> References: <562388EC.9000506@ripe.net> <5623EA5B.4090908@ripe.net> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C40C@ACCAN01.accan.local> Some language tweaked. As with previous commentators, if this is not liked, revert to the previous version. Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? A: We expect publish our current draft of the proposal in the coming few weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG) and that this version reflects their portion of the proposal. This version is therefore available to the community as a complete form of the proposal in a near final form. Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal? A: This version will be the output of the ICG process for compiling a transition proposal, as far as ICG is concerned. The ICG does not plan to make any further substantive revisions on its own initiative. Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. This is subject to the timelines available from the CWG (and in turn the CCWG). Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will submit the proposal to the ICANN Board for relaying to the NTIA. This will complete our mandate. However, the ICG plans to remain constituted until September 2016 in order to respond to any queries about the proposal. The ICG has no plans to undertake any further work beyond submitting the proposal. If there were widely supported requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal we would be available to coordinate this according to the processes we have used to date. From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Mon Oct 19 06:54:43 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:54:43 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions In-Reply-To: <11555111.344.1445236714854.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> References: <765293269.2273784.1445230239596.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <11555111.344.1445236714854.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C40D@ACCAN01.accan.local> And I would expect that this condition statement would be removed from the final proposal once the CCWG satisfies the CWG. That would be the sort of non substantive changes the proposal should get before submission. Narelle Envisaging a happy time when everyone agrees > On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net > wrote: > > > And here is what I propose we say: > > > X013 The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the > condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability > mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working > Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as > specified in the names proposal. > > X014 Before submitting this proposal the ICG will seek confirmation > from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > > > and shorten the language in the other paragraphs in line with this. > > Daniel > From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Mon Oct 19 06:58:38 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:58:38 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] pie chart In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C40E@ACCAN01.accan.local> This looks fine to me. I caution that the 21% unclear or not specific to proposal should be able to be unpacked a little. Narelle [There are at least two people up for medals as a result of this exercise... Lyn and Alissa! Thank you for all your effort] -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, 19 October 2015 4:45 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] pie chart With many thanks to Lynn for her work on this, please have a look at slide 4 in the attached. She re-did analysis of every comment. If you cannot live with us showing this during the engagement session, please send mail to the list by 10:30am today. Thanks, Alissa From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Mon Oct 19 07:07:14 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:07:14 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <8726874.134.1445176029561.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> References: <56239CF9.4050103@ripe.net> <8726874.134.1445176029561.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C410@ACCAN01.accan.local> This is what I would call a distinction without a difference. My reading (and I was also not in the room) was that we were okay with asking people within the communities whether they actually wanted us to do any more, but that we weren't going to set up a massive effort to do so. I heard it more as the 'impetus to do so needed to come from the communities' rather than the complete initiative. Shades of grey, imho. The Q&A puts the question out there for me sufficiently well, however. If we hear back, we hear back and we discuss. If not, we don't. I also agree with Daniel about resources as he made in other mails. It could be that a pared back version of the ICG would satisfy - say half the size? But I am not speculating about something that hasn't been put up for discussion. Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Monday, 19 October 2015 12:47 AM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts Daniel, it seems there is a difference in the way we perceived the discussion. Best, JJ. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 14:22:01 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in favour of reaching out to our communities. ... It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Oct 19 07:11:43 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:11:43 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <12862386.339.1445236618040.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> References: <12862386.339.1445236618040.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: <562497AF.2020608@ripe.net> Jean-Jaques, Joe, what you say is in line with what I said and thus I believe we are in agreement. Just to be absolutely sure: I agree that the initiative could only come from NTIA after submission but I expect that we would use the process we used before to do that and which involves the OCs. For completeness let me say that in case ICANN attaches comments to our proposal when transmitting it to NTIA we might consider reacting to that. I hope that our liaison mechanism will allow us to foresee such comments and possibly address them before submission. Daniel On 19.10.15 8:36 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Daniel, Joseph & All, > > my position is well reflected in Joseph's latest remark, below. > > Daniel, while agreeing that we may be required to MODIFY the Transition Plan after having sent it to NTIA, I would repeat, like Joseph, that such tasking would/can only come from NTIA, not from our communities. > > The possibility of a continuation of ICG is a separate issue, for which I recommend that we consult our communities (ALL our communities, not just the OCs). > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Joseph Alhadeff" > À: "Daniel Karrenberg" > Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 06:41:59 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session > > I understand our role to exist until the acceptance of the proposal not just its submission. But in that time only NTIA would be in a position of sending it back to us for specific work... Any other scenario does not serve the collective interests of the stakeholders who sent us here.... Agree with Jean-Jacques that I hope not to find out... > > Joe > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 18.10.15 17:01 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>> >>> Are we really prepared -and more importantly, does our mandate allow/require us- to CHANGE the Transition Plan AFTER we have sent it to the NTIA? >> >> Jean-Jaques, >> >> There is a scenario where NTIA might suggest changes to us and via us to >> the OCs. If the OCs react to that and make changes to their input to us >> I consider it to be within our current mandate and charter to apply the >> same process we have used thus far to produce a revised proposal. In my >> mind this is very much more clearly in our mandate than playing a role >> in implementation. In fact I see little alternatives to using the ICG >> process to make any such revisions should they be required. >> >> I consider this an unlikely, yet possible scenario. I hope very much >> that this scenario will not occur. >> >> Hence I have not adapted the language. If this remains an issue I would >> welcome alternative words. >> >> >> Daniel >> >> >>> Jean-Jacques. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >>> À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" >>> Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:56:28 >>> Objet: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session >>> >>> >>> >>> Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem >>> straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support? >>> >>> >>> Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? >>> >>> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming few >>> weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their >>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the >>> parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can use >>> the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. >>> >>> >>> Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. >>> >>> A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. ICG >>> does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord. >>> >>> >>> Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? >>> >>> A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission >>> to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their >>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. As to when >>> exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. >>> >>> >>> Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? >>> >>> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few >>> weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements >>> regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel >>> accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will >>> submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible >>> queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate. >>> >>> We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported >>> requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss >>> them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal we >>> would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Oct 19 07:18:35 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:18:35 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C40C@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <562388EC.9000506@ripe.net> <5623EA5B.4090908@ripe.net> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C40C@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <5624994B.4090407@ripe.net> I can live with that although I would prefer the more definite language. It seems to me that your language has more support though. I advise against referring to the CCWG in this context. Our only commitment is to CWG. It is entirely possible that the CWG may tell us they are satisfied at any time. The language for the last answer needs to be made consistent. On 19.10.15 8:51 , Narelle Clark wrote: > Some language tweaked. As with previous commentators, if this is not liked, revert to the previous version. > > > Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? > > A: We expect publish our current draft of the proposal in the coming few weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG) and that this version reflects their portion of the proposal. This version is therefore available to the community as a complete form of the proposal in a near final form. > > > Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal? > > A: This version will be the output of the ICG process for compiling a transition proposal, as far as ICG is concerned. The ICG does not plan to make any further substantive revisions on its own initiative. > > > Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? > > A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. This is subject to the timelines available from the CWG (and in turn the CCWG). > > > Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? > > A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will submit the proposal to the ICANN Board for relaying to the NTIA. This will complete our mandate. However, the ICG plans to remain constituted until September 2016 in order to respond to any queries about the proposal. > > The ICG has no plans to undertake any further work beyond submitting the proposal. If there were widely supported requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal we would be available to coordinate this according to the processes we have used to date. > > > From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Oct 19 07:32:36 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Re: pie chart In-Reply-To: <56249614.6080609@ripe.net> References: <56249614.6080609@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56249C94.3060304@ripe.net> - This is *much* more clear and less likely to be misinterpreted. Thanks to those who did the work. Daniel On 19.10.15 7:45 , Alissa Cooper wrote: > With many thanks to Lynn for her work on this, please have a look at slide 4 in the attached. She re-did analysis of every comment. > > If you cannot live with us showing this during the engagement session, please send mail to the list by 10:30am today. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Mon Oct 19 07:36:03 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:36:03 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C40C@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <562388EC.9000506@ripe.net> <5623EA5B.4090908@ripe.net> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C40C@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: Narelle: This is better, we definitely should not revert to the previous one. I still have a bit of a problem with the last statement: > This version is therefore available to the community as a complete form of > the proposal in a near final form. Can we change that to: > We have therefore chosen to make this near-final version of the proposal available to the community. "complete form of the proposal in a near final form" seems awkward and I still think there is the potential for confusion about what it is we are making available. > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Narelle Clark > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:52 AM > To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etc > Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session > > Some language tweaked. As with previous commentators, if this is not liked, > revert to the previous version. > > > Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? > > A: We expect publish our current draft of the proposal in the coming few > weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements > regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel accountability > process (CCWG) and that this version reflects their portion of the proposal. > This version is therefore available to the community as a complete form of > the proposal in a near final form. > > > Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal? > > A: This version will be the output of the ICG process for compiling a transition > proposal, as far as ICG is concerned. The ICG does not plan to make any > further substantive revisions on its own initiative. > > > Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? > > A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for transmission to > NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG that their requirements > regarding ICANN accountability have been met. This is subject to the timelines > available from the CWG (and in turn the CCWG). > > > Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? > > A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few weeks. We > will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements regarding ICANN > accountability have been met by the parallel accountability process (CCWG). > Once we have that confirmation we will submit the proposal to the ICANN > Board for relaying to the NTIA. This will complete our mandate. However, the > ICG plans to remain constituted until September 2016 in order to respond to > any queries about the proposal. > > The ICG has no plans to undertake any further work beyond submitting the > proposal. If there were widely supported requests to extend our mandate and > charter we would of course discuss them. If there were any requests from the > OCs to change the proposal we would be available to coordinate this > according to the processes we have used to date. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Mon Oct 19 07:38:08 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:38:08 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C404@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <5381721A-7847-45FF-9244-4572EC0C6BB7@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7ACA0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C404@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: Also agree --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Narelle Clark Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:22 AM To: Alissa Cooper ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary I agree with keeping these items in the executive summary as that is what they are doing: summarising the activity. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 18 October 2015 12:25 To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary I am going through to remove the mentions of the public comments in the executive summary. I have questions about two paragraphs that mention the public comments and whether we’re sure we want to remove them. The first is X005: "X005 The ICG sought public comment on the combined proposal and the final version presented here reflects comments received. The ICG received 157 comments on the combined proposal from a wide variety of stakeholders, including individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees, businesses and trade associations, civil society groups, governments, and others from all regions of the world." It strikes me that this is useful in the executive summary for those who may not read the full proposal, so they know that the public had an opportunity to comment. The other is X025, which is part of our assessment of whether the proposal has broad community support: "X025 The majority of commenters who submitted comments during the public comment period support the proposal. These commenters included individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees within the ICANN community, businesses and trade associations, civil society organizations, governments, and others from across all regions of the world. Thus community support for the combined proposal is broad both in diversity of interests and geography of origin. Furthermore, the consensus of the ICG in support of the proposal provides a powerful demonstration of the breadth of community support." In this case the public comments are a core basis of our conclusion here, so I was wondering whether we could leave this in the executive summary. Thank, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Mon Oct 19 07:39:58 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:39:58 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C407@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <25404696.189.1445180484977.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <5623EC2C.1000300@ripe.net> <439E81FC-7B73-4AF6-83F9-535FF082C5F2@oracle.com> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C407@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: I agree with Narelle, Joe and Jean-Jacques. Are we all in consensus about the fact that we "exist until the acceptance of the proposal not just its submission." Do we have a common understanding of what "acceptance" means? --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Narelle Clark > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:31 AM > To: Joseph Alhadeff ; Daniel Karrenberg > > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session > > Indeed! > > And agree with Joe and Jean-Jacques > > Narelle > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Joseph Alhadeff > Sent: Monday, 19 October 2015 4:42 PM > To: Daniel Karrenberg > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session > > I understand our role to exist until the acceptance of the proposal not just its > submission. But in that time only NTIA would be in a position of sending it > back to us for specific work... Any other scenario does not serve the > collective interests of the stakeholders who sent us here.... Agree with Jean- > Jacques that I hope not to find out... > > Joe > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Daniel Karrenberg > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 18.10.15 17:01 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > >> > >> Are we really prepared -and more importantly, does our mandate > allow/require us- to CHANGE the Transition Plan AFTER we have sent it to the > NTIA? > > > > Jean-Jaques, > > > > There is a scenario where NTIA might suggest changes to us and via us > > to the OCs. If the OCs react to that and make changes to their input > > to us I consider it to be within our current mandate and charter to > > apply the same process we have used thus far to produce a revised > > proposal. In my mind this is very much more clearly in our mandate > > than playing a role in implementation. In fact I see little > > alternatives to using the ICG process to make any such revisions should they > be required. > > > > I consider this an unlikely, yet possible scenario. I hope very much > > that this scenario will not occur. > > > > Hence I have not adapted the language. If this remains an issue I > > would welcome alternative words. > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > >> Jean-Jacques. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Mail original ----- > >> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > >> À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > >> Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:56:28 > >> Objet: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session > >> > >> > >> > >> Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem > >> straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support? > >> > >> > >> Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? > >> > >> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming > >> few weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their > >> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the > >> parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can > >> use the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. > >> > >> > >> Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. > >> > >> A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. > >> ICG does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord. > >> > >> > >> Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? > >> > >> A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for > >> transmission to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG > >> that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. > >> As to when exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. > >> > >> > >> Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? > >> > >> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few > >> weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements > >> regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel > >> accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will > >> submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible > >> queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate. > >> > >> We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported > >> requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss > >> them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal > >> we would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Oct 19 07:45:47 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:45:47 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session In-Reply-To: References: <25404696.189.1445180484977.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <5623EC2C.1000300@ripe.net> <439E81FC-7B73-4AF6-83F9-535FF082C5F2@oracle.com> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C407@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <56249FAB.9010000@ripe.net> Can't resist: that means we might exist forever. ;-) On 19.10.15 9:39 , Mueller, Milton L wrote: > I agree with Narelle, Joe and Jean-Jacques. > Are we all in consensus about the fact that we "exist until the acceptance of the proposal not just its submission." > > Do we have a common understanding of what "acceptance" means? > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Narelle Clark >> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:31 AM >> To: Joseph Alhadeff ; Daniel Karrenberg >> >> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session >> >> Indeed! >> >> And agree with Joe and Jean-Jacques >> >> Narelle >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Joseph Alhadeff >> Sent: Monday, 19 October 2015 4:42 PM >> To: Daniel Karrenberg >> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session >> >> I understand our role to exist until the acceptance of the proposal not just its >> submission. But in that time only NTIA would be in a position of sending it >> back to us for specific work... Any other scenario does not serve the >> collective interests of the stakeholders who sent us here.... Agree with Jean- >> Jacques that I hope not to find out... >> >> Joe >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 18.10.15 17:01 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>> >>>> Are we really prepared -and more importantly, does our mandate >> allow/require us- to CHANGE the Transition Plan AFTER we have sent it to the >> NTIA? >>> >>> Jean-Jaques, >>> >>> There is a scenario where NTIA might suggest changes to us and via us >>> to the OCs. If the OCs react to that and make changes to their input >>> to us I consider it to be within our current mandate and charter to >>> apply the same process we have used thus far to produce a revised >>> proposal. In my mind this is very much more clearly in our mandate >>> than playing a role in implementation. In fact I see little >>> alternatives to using the ICG process to make any such revisions should they >> be required. >>> >>> I consider this an unlikely, yet possible scenario. I hope very much >>> that this scenario will not occur. >>> >>> Hence I have not adapted the language. If this remains an issue I >>> would welcome alternative words. >>> >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >>>> À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" >>>> Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:56:28 >>>> Objet: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem >>>> straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support? >>>> >>>> >>>> Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready? >>>> >>>> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming >>>> few weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their >>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the >>>> parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can >>>> use the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal. >>>> >>>> A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned. >>>> ICG does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord. >>>> >>>> >>>> Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA? >>>> >>>> A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for >>>> transmission to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG >>>> that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met. >>>> As to when exactly this will be, please ask the CWG. >>>> >>>> >>>> Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition? >>>> >>>> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few >>>> weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements >>>> regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel >>>> accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will >>>> submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible >>>> queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate. >>>> >>>> We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported >>>> requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss >>>> them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal >>>> we would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon Oct 19 07:58:43 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 03:58:43 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7ACA0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <5381721A-7847-45FF-9244-4572EC0C6BB7@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B7ACA0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <276341D3-B6DE-43E8-9A1C-27C39F56A743@oracle.com> Agree. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > > I’d say good catch! Both would seem reasonable for retention. > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 18 October 2015 12:25 > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary > > I am going through to remove the mentions of the public comments in the executive summary. I have questions about two paragraphs that mention the public comments and whether we’re sure we want to remove them. The first is X005: > > "X005 The ICG sought public comment on the combined proposal and the final version presented here reflects comments received. The ICG received 157 comments on the combined proposal from a wide variety of stakeholders, including individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees, businesses and trade associations, civil society groups, governments, and others from all regions of the world." > > It strikes me that this is useful in the executive summary for those who may not read the full proposal, so they know that the public had an opportunity to comment. > > The other is X025, which is part of our assessment of whether the proposal has broad community support: > "X025 The majority of commenters who submitted comments during the public comment period support the proposal. These commenters included individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees within the ICANN community, businesses and trade associations, civil society organizations, governments, and others from across all regions of the world. Thus community support for the combined proposal is broad both in diversity of interests and geography of origin. Furthermore, the consensus of the ICG in support of the proposal provides a powerful demonstration of the breadth of community support." > > > In this case the public comments are a core basis of our conclusion here, so I was wondering whether we could leave this in the executive summary. > > Thank, > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Mon Oct 19 08:09:32 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:09:32 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] pie chart In-Reply-To: <56249C94.3060304@ripe.net> References: <56249614.6080609@ripe.net> <56249C94.3060304@ripe.net> Message-ID: <86D67DC5-68BC-4788-BBDF-994B88D8CA12@frobbit.se> +1 And we specifically do have good substantiative data to back up the chart. paf On 19 Oct 2015, at 8:32, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > - > This is *much* more clear and less likely to be misinterpreted. Thanks to those who did the work. > > Daniel > > On 19.10.15 7:45 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >> With many thanks to Lynn for her work on this, please have a look at slide 4 in the attached. She re-did analysis of every comment. >> >> If you cannot live with us showing this during the engagement session, please send mail to the list by 10:30am today. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon Oct 19 08:16:24 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 04:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C410@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <56239CF9.4050103@ripe.net> <8726874.134.1445176029561.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBC6C410@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <5624A6D8.80706@oracle.com> Narelle: The resources issue is not really addressable, as the founding basis of the ICG is a constitution of all relevant communities, a subset of which would always be incomplete. Joe On 10/19/2015 3:07 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > This is what I would call a distinction without a difference. > > My reading (and I was also not in the room) was that we were okay with asking people within the communities whether they actually wanted us to do any more, but that we weren't going to set up a massive effort to do so. I heard it more as the 'impetus to do so needed to come from the communities' rather than the complete initiative. Shades of grey, imho. > > The Q&A puts the question out there for me sufficiently well, however. If we hear back, we hear back and we discuss. If not, we don't. > > I also agree with Daniel about resources as he made in other mails. It could be that a pared back version of the ICG would satisfy - say half the size? But I am not speculating about something that hasn't been put up for discussion. > > > Narelle > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques > Sent: Monday, 19 October 2015 12:47 AM > To: Daniel Karrenberg > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts > > Daniel, > it seems there is a difference in the way we perceived the discussion. > Best, > JJ. > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 14:22:01 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts > > > > On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in favour of reaching out to our communities. ... > It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Oct 19 08:21:15 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:21:15 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Day 2: Action Items Message-ID: <04fb01d10a47$23846510$6a8d2f30$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, As confirmed by the chairs, please find the action items from Day 2 of the ICG meeting.   Action Items:   1. Chairs to draft status update statement and disclaimer that will go on the front page of the proposal and circulate for discussion at the Friday 23 October meeting.   2. Wilson to send in references to .ARPA and also location of where to be added to Part 0.   3. Cooper to remove the text about public comments from the executive summary (per St. Amour and Alhadeff).   4. Boyle to review the accuracy of the resolution mechanism bullet in the implementation list in Part 0 Section V and report back to the ICG at the Thursday 22 October meeting.   5. ICG members to respond to Karrenberg’s email http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-October/001929.ht ml regarding the ICG’s variations of language describing the dependency of the CWG proposal on the CCWG-Accountability work.   6. Cooper to make edits in the executive summary and part 0  based on the responses from the ICG to Karrenberg’s email in Action Item 6 above before Thursday, 22 October 2015. Please note that there were 3 actions that were taken and already resolved regarding paragraph 02 text, breakout of the support/oppose statistics, and revision of the slide deck . These taken and resolved items will be recorded in the minutes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer   From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon Oct 19 08:25:24 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 04:25:24 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] pie chart In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5624A8F4.7070806@oracle.com> looks good. In the talking points, should we suggest that much of the qualified support included issues that were addressable/we addressed? For example some of those issues included IP dependency. A number included CWG dependency... Joe On 10/19/2015 1:45 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > With many thanks to Lynn for her work on this, please have a look at slide 4 in the attached. She re-did analysis of every comment. > > If you cannot live with us showing this during the engagement session, please send mail to the list by 10:30am today. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon Oct 19 08:30:02 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 04:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <56239CF9.4050103@ripe.net> References: <1200403.112.1445172626354.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <56239CF9.4050103@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5624AA0A.60700@oracle.com> Daniel: I think the concept was that we could reach out to see if an implementation role for us was needed, with Jean-Jacques suggesting it needed to be a canvass of all communities, not just OCs. I concur that the validation of implementation work had to be external, not self-determined. Joe On 10/18/2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in favour of reaching out to our communities. ... > It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the > initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully > even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Oct 19 09:11:05 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:11:05 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal Message-ID: <33c6mgm1hkj91x0a68c1y1lo.1445245792238@email.android.com> Proposed Text: The additional domains under .arpa, such as “in-addr.arpa” and “ip6.arpa”, do not occur in the root zone. The provision of these services are solely under the purview of the IAB as the authority of the .ARPA registry and therefore not included in the transition as existing systems will continue to apply. Include references: https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2000/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ RFC 3172 defines the Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for .ARPA. -----8 <---------8 <------------- I had suggested this go into the section 'Workability' because it should go with the piece on the RZM. I now think that both of those paragraphs should go in under the heading 'Completeness and Clarity' at the end. These are parts that are not addressed in the combined proposal and everyone is happy that they aren't. Both seem more relevant there. Narelle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Oct 19 10:04:55 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:04:55 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] final slides Message-ID: Updates: Made the fonts bigger - the slides are hard to see in the auditorium. Slide 4: - updated numbers slightly — point well taken from Narelle that we need to be able to explain what the categories are, and as a result I had a back-and-forth with Lynn that led to reclassification of some comments from unclear/not specific category to the oppose transition category - deleted final bullet as it is no longer true given new classification of comments - added white space between pie and legend Slide 5: - middle sub-bullet now reads “PTI Board remit, membership” Slides 7, 8: - Edited to reflect discussion in the Q&A thread Let’s go with this deck, we will all speak carefully to make sure we factually represent everything. Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-ICANN54-v4-with-chart.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 360105 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Oct 19 10:45:22 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:45:22 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] final slides In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <054d01d10a5b$44d33890$ce79a9b0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The slide deck (v4) has now been posted to the ICG web site, documents page: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-documents/ Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 11:05 AM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] final slides Updates: Made the fonts bigger - the slides are hard to see in the auditorium. Slide 4: - updated numbers slightly — point well taken from Narelle that we need to be able to explain what the categories are, and as a result I had a back-and-forth with Lynn that led to reclassification of some comments from unclear/not specific category to the oppose transition category - deleted final bullet as it is no longer true given new classification of comments - added white space between pie and legend Slide 5: - middle sub-bullet now reads “PTI Board remit, membership” Slides 7, 8: - Edited to reflect discussion in the Q&A thread Let’s go with this deck, we will all speak carefully to make sure we factually represent everything. Alissa From mnuduma at yahoo.com Mon Oct 19 10:56:02 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:56:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] final slides In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <130446037.2405302.1445252162963.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Thank you Allissa, Lynn and others for refining the slides. They all look good to me. Mary Uduma On Monday, October 19, 2015 11:07 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: Updates: Made the fonts bigger - the slides are hard to see in the auditorium. Slide 4: - updated numbers slightly — point well taken from Narelle that we need to be able to explain what the categories are, and as a result I had a back-and-forth with Lynn that led to reclassification of some comments from unclear/not specific category to the oppose transition category - deleted final bullet as it is no longer true given new classification of comments - added white space between pie and legend Slide 5: - middle sub-bullet now reads “PTI Board remit, membership” Slides 7, 8: - Edited to reflect discussion in the Q&A thread Let’s go with this deck, we will all speak carefully to make sure we factually represent everything. Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keith at internetnz.net.nz Mon Oct 19 11:11:33 2015 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:11:33 +1300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Akram Atallah's blog post In-Reply-To: <054d01d10a5b$44d33890$ce79a9b0$@icgsec.asia> References: <054d01d10a5b$44d33890$ce79a9b0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <5624CFE5.4040504@internetnz.net.nz> Hi all, Apologies if this already was notified to us and I have missed it in the plethora of recent list messages, but is pertinent to us all.... Cheers Keith ----------------- Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation It has been amazing to watch how far the community has come in its efforts to develop proposals for theIANA stewardship transition over the last 18 months. The time and effort that has gone into the process so far is nothing short of incredible. In addition to my existing responsibility as the President of the Global Domains Division, I have also recently taken on the responsibility of ensuring a successful implementation of the IANA Stewardship transition, assuming an approved proposal by NTIA. As such, I have been following the community discussions very closely and assessing the potential impact of any shifts in the timelines, while working in close collaboration with Theresa Swinehart, who leads the IANA stewardship transition process in the development of the transition proposals and the community work to achieve a successful outcome. We have determined there are numerous operational aspects in this phase of the process and planning our work must begin now. Based on my initial assessment of the current proposals, ICANN will need approximately four months once the proposals are approved by the U.S. Government to finish implementing all the required elements. NTIA's contract with ICANN is set to expire on 30 September, 2016, but we do not know when the proposals will be approved by NTIA. Therefore, it behooves us to make as much progress as possible prior to the approval of the proposals. We are already starting pre-planning discussions with the operational communities and the CCWG to factor in the oversight and reporting needs so we can have an efficient and productive process to meet the quickly approaching deadline. We are also working closely with NTIA to identify elements of the proposals that can be implemented ahead of approval while respecting the IANA contract obligations. We look forward to a productive working relationship with the ICANN community to ensure a smooth and timely implementation. If you're interested in learning more about how ICANN has begun evaluating the work necessary for implementation, please join us for the IANA Stewardship Transition – Planning for Implementation session on Wednesday, October 21 at ICANN54. From paf at frobbit.se Mon Oct 19 11:16:49 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:16:49 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal In-Reply-To: <33c6mgm1hkj91x0a68c1y1lo.1445245792238@email.android.com> References: <33c6mgm1hkj91x0a68c1y1lo.1445245792238@email.android.com> Message-ID: <9FDE2EDB-06A2-448D-B77A-FCF24C863607@frobbit.se> FWIW: .ARPA itself is a separate zone, and not in the root zone. It is delegated just like any TLD. It is managed by the root server operators though, and delegated to the same set of name servers that runs the root zone. Patrik is a On 19 Oct 2015, at 10:11, Narelle Clark wrote: > Proposed Text: > > The additional domains under .arpa, such as “in-addr.arpa” and “ip6.arpa”, do not occur in the root zone. The provision of these services are solely under the purview of the IAB as the authority of the .ARPA registry and therefore not included in the transition as existing systems will continue to apply. > > Include references: > https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2000/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ > > RFC 3172 defines the Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for .ARPA. > > -----8 <---------8 <------------- > > I had suggested this go into the section 'Workability' because it should go with the piece on the RZM. > > I now think that both of those paragraphs should go in under the heading 'Completeness and Clarity' at the end. These are parts that are not addressed in the combined proposal and everyone is happy that they aren't. > > Both seem more relevant there. > > > Narelle > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Oct 19 13:48:04 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:48:04 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary In-Reply-To: <5881111.338.1445236285569.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> References: <5881111.338.1445236285569.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: Hi Jean-Jacques, My issue with this suggestion is that it is true for basically every point in the executive summary. Everything we say here is further elaborated somewhere in the proposal. I’d rather not add a single link arbitrarily or links for each point made there. Alissa > On Oct 19, 2015, at 7:31 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > Alissa, > as indicated in a previous email, I agree with this first indication about Public Comments, and suggested that at the end of your proposed text in X005, you insert a link. > Thanks. > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Narelle Clark" > À: "Alissa Cooper" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 07:22:17 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary > > > > > > I agree with keeping these items in the executive summary as that is what they are doing: summarising the activity. > > > > > > Narelle > > > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 18 October 2015 12:25 > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary > > > > I am going through to remove the mentions of the public comments in the executive summary. I have questions about two paragraphs that mention the public comments and whether we’re sure we want to remove them. The first is X005: > > > > > > "X005 The ICG sought public comment on the combined proposal and the final version presented here reflects comments received. The ICG received 157 comments on the combined proposal from a wide variety of stakeholders, including individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees, businesses and trade associations, civil society groups, governments, and others from all regions of the world." > > > It strikes me that this is useful in the executive summary for those who may not read the full proposal, so they know that the public had an opportunity to comment. > > > > > > The other is X025, which is part of our assessment of whether the proposal has broad community support: > > > "X025 The majority of commenters who submitted comments during the public comment period support the proposal. These commenters included individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees within the ICANN community, businesses and trade associations, civil society organizations, governments, and others from across all regions of the world. Thus community support for the combined proposal is broad both in diversity of interests and geography of origin. Furthermore, the consensus of the ICG in support of the proposal provides a powerful demonstration of the breadth of community support." > > > > > > In this case the public comments are a core basis of our conclusion here, so I was wondering whether we could leave this in the executive summary. > > > > > > Thank, > > > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Oct 19 13:52:52 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:52:52 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal In-Reply-To: <33c6mgm1hkj91x0a68c1y1lo.1445245792238@email.android.com> References: <33c6mgm1hkj91x0a68c1y1lo.1445245792238@email.android.com> Message-ID: Hi Narelle, I’m unclear on why we would put this in part 0. These points are already reflected in paragraphs 2018, 2033, and 3047 of the proposal. Alissa > On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > > > > > > Proposed Text: > > The additional domains under .arpa, such as “in-addr.arpa” and “ip6.arpa”, do not occur in the root zone. The provision of these services are solely under the purview of the IAB as the authority of the .ARPA registry and therefore not included in the transition as existing systems will continue to apply. > > Include references: > https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs200 0/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ > > RFC 3172 > defines the Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for .ARPA. > > -----8 <---------8 <------------- > > I had suggested this go into the section 'Workability' because it should go with the piece on the RZM. > > I now think that both of those paragraphs should go in under the heading 'Completeness and Clarity' at the end. These are parts that are not addressed in the combined proposal and everyone is happy that they aren't. > > Both seem more relevant there. > > > Narelle > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Mon Oct 19 14:02:52 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:02:52 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <31005156.40.1445263367359.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Alissa, that's another logic, which I can also accept. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: "Narelle Clark" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 14:48:04 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary Hi Jean-Jacques, My issue with this suggestion is that it is true for basically every point in the executive summary. Everything we say here is further elaborated somewhere in the proposal. I’d rather not add a single link arbitrarily or links for each point made there. Alissa > On Oct 19, 2015, at 7:31 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > Alissa, > as indicated in a previous email, I agree with this first indication about Public Comments, and suggested that at the end of your proposed text in X005, you insert a link. > Thanks. > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Narelle Clark" > À: "Alissa Cooper" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 07:22:17 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary > > > > > > I agree with keeping these items in the executive summary as that is what they are doing: summarising the activity. > > > > > > Narelle > > > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 18 October 2015 12:25 > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Removing public comment mentions in the executive summary > > > > I am going through to remove the mentions of the public comments in the executive summary. I have questions about two paragraphs that mention the public comments and whether we’re sure we want to remove them. The first is X005: > > > > > > "X005 The ICG sought public comment on the combined proposal and the final version presented here reflects comments received. The ICG received 157 comments on the combined proposal from a wide variety of stakeholders, including individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees, businesses and trade associations, civil society groups, governments, and others from all regions of the world." > > > It strikes me that this is useful in the executive summary for those who may not read the full proposal, so they know that the public had an opportunity to comment. > > > > > > The other is X025, which is part of our assessment of whether the proposal has broad community support: > > > "X025 The majority of commenters who submitted comments during the public comment period support the proposal. These commenters included individuals, operational communities, supporting organizations and advisory committees within the ICANN community, businesses and trade associations, civil society organizations, governments, and others from across all regions of the world. Thus community support for the combined proposal is broad both in diversity of interests and geography of origin. Furthermore, the consensus of the ICG in support of the proposal provides a powerful demonstration of the breadth of community support." > > > > > > In this case the public comments are a core basis of our conclusion here, so I was wondering whether we could leave this in the executive summary. > > > > > > Thank, > > > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From yannis at icgsec.asia Mon Oct 19 14:34:38 2015 From: yannis at icgsec.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:34:38 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #7 Day 2 Attendance & Chat Transcript Message-ID: <26DDD03D-0A17-4E50-8C6D-3347A95141CF@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the attendance list (below) and chat transcript (attached) for Day 2, 18th Oct of the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #7: ICG Members Alan Barrett (NRO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Michael Niebel (GAC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Liaison Kuo-Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) Apologies James Bladel (GNSO) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Best Regards, Yannis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG F2F Meeting #7 Day 2 Chat Transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 93231 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Oct 19 14:47:36 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:47:36 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. In-Reply-To: <20151015145439.C717E1C1495@smtp.notifymdm.com> References: <20151015145439.C717E1C1495@smtp.notifymdm.com> Message-ID: <05f401d10a7d$1b557470$52005d50$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the summary document circulated by Manal and Joe previously. Fig. 2 has been updated to the version as used during the ICG Engagement Session slide deck this morning. Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1GmrR5Q 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 Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 3:56 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org; manal at tra.gov.eg Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. A slight edit to Manal's email, the document was compiled by her with some help from me. Thanks for all of your work! Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] Received: Thursday, 15 Oct 2015, 5:27PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] CC: joseph alhadeff (joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com) [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; Alissa Cooper (alissa at cooperw.in) [alissa at cooperw.in] Subject: Public Comment Summary Report .. Dear All .. With sincere apologies for the delay, please find attached the Public Comment Summary Report, compiled by Joe and myself, as agreed during our face-to-face meeting in LA .. It is basically comprised of text drafted by colleagues who volunteered (or were volunteered :)), and agreed on the mailing list by ICG members .. Kindly note that: - All sources, to our best, are included in green italics between square brackets .. - There are still highlights in yellow and comments where we were not sure, but thought to move the discussion to the list .. - Suggested edits to the agreed text are marked in track changes .. - Where there are 2 slightly different versions of the same text, both are included for us to decide .. Looking forward to our discussions in Dublin .. Safe travels to everyone .. Kind Regards --Manal PS: Joe and I worked on different versions and I'm attaching a merge, so all edits appear to come from me .. Yet I tried to mark Joe's comments as received .. Joe, please feel free to flag any inaccuracies .. _______________________________________________ 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 - 15Oct15-with-chart.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 150579 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Oct 19 15:40:49 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:40:49 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <5624AA0A.60700@oracle.com> References: <1200403.112.1445172626354.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <56239CF9.4050103@ripe.net> <5624AA0A.60700@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56250F01.1010807@ripe.net> I did not hear universal support for actively reaching out. I heard some people say explicitly that the initiative should not come from us. I for one find such outreach rather pathetic and weakening our credibility. If I am the really only one then fine. So if noone else speaks up I will drop that particular point. Daniel On 19.10.15 10:30 , joseph alhadeff wrote: > Daniel: > > I think the concept was that we could reach out to see if an > implementation role for us was needed, with Jean-Jacques suggesting it > needed to be a canvass of all communities, not just OCs. I concur that > the validation of implementation work had to be external, not > self-determined. > > Joe > > On 10/18/2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> >> On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>> ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in >>> favour of reaching out to our communities. ... >> It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the >> initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully >> even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. >> >> Daniel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon Oct 19 16:00:40 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:00:40 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <56250F01.1010807@ripe.net> References: <1200403.112.1445172626354.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <56239CF9.4050103@ripe.net> <5624AA0A.60700@oracle.com> <56250F01.1010807@ripe.net> Message-ID: <562513A8.9070104@oracle.com> Daniel: I see it differently. We can reach out based on the concept that a number of comments asked about the implementation period and our role in it. As our charter does not specifically define a role for us we are reaching out to our constituent communities for their views on what is needed/appropriate during implementation. I wonder whether we should also reach out to NTIA as well, at least informally... I think our not assuming powers we are not clearly given merely reinforces our collective community underpinning and our commitment of service to them... Joe On 10/19/2015 11:40 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > I did not hear universal support for actively reaching out. I heard some > people say explicitly that the initiative should not come from us. I for > one find such outreach rather pathetic and weakening our credibility. If > I am the really only one then fine. So if noone else speaks up I will > drop that particular point. > > Daniel > > On 19.10.15 10:30 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >> Daniel: >> >> I think the concept was that we could reach out to see if an >> implementation role for us was needed, with Jean-Jacques suggesting it >> needed to be a canvass of all communities, not just OCs. I concur that >> the validation of implementation work had to be external, not >> self-determined. >> >> Joe >> >> On 10/18/2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>> On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>> ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in >>>> favour of reaching out to our communities. ... >>> It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the >>> initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully >>> even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Mon Oct 19 16:12:00 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:12:00 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. In-Reply-To: <05f401d10a7d$1b557470$52005d50$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <22720217.147.1445271119923.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Dear All, because of some technical problem, currently I cannot do corrections on the proposed text in Dropbox. I would therefore kindly request Secretariat to transfer my proposed corrections (enclosed) to the right location in Dropbox. Thank you. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: "Joseph Alhadeff" , internal-cg at ianacg.org, manal at tra.gov.eg Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 15:47:36 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. Dear All, Please find the summary document circulated by Manal and Joe previously. Fig. 2 has been updated to the version as used during the ICG Engagement Session slide deck this morning. Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1GmrR5Q 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 Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 3:56 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org; manal at tra.gov.eg Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. A slight edit to Manal's email, the document was compiled by her with some help from me. Thanks for all of your work! Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] Received: Thursday, 15 Oct 2015, 5:27PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] CC: joseph alhadeff (joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com) [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; Alissa Cooper (alissa at cooperw.in) [alissa at cooperw.in] Subject: Public Comment Summary Report .. Dear All .. With sincere apologies for the delay, please find attached the Public Comment Summary Report, compiled by Joe and myself, as agreed during our face-to-face meeting in LA .. It is basically comprised of text drafted by colleagues who volunteered (or were volunteered :)), and agreed on the mailing list by ICG members .. Kindly note that: - All sources, to our best, are included in green italics between square brackets .. - There are still highlights in yellow and comments where we were not sure, but thought to move the discussion to the list .. - Suggested edits to the agreed text are marked in track changes .. - Where there are 2 slightly different versions of the same text, both are included for us to decide .. Looking forward to our discussions in Dublin .. Safe travels to everyone .. Kind Regards --Manal PS: Joe and I worked on different versions and I'm attaching a merge, so all edits appear to come from me .. Yet I tried to mark Joe's comments as received .. Joe, please feel free to flag any inaccuracies .. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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-v.JJS - 15Oct15-with-chart.doc Type: application/msword Size: 285184 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Oct 19 16:23:14 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:23:14 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <56250F01.1010807@ripe.net> References: <1200403.112.1445172626354.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <56239CF9.4050103@ripe.net> <5624AA0A.60700@oracle.com> <56250F01.1010807@ripe.net> Message-ID: <2C424850-4AC3-47C5-BC58-2E836A4E95D1@cooperw.in> I don’t see a need to craft a specific question and send that question to each community. We were each sent to the ICG from a particular community. Those who think their communities have an interest in this could go consult with our communities, we could set a deadline, and then have a conversation about it after the deadline. This is my basic understanding of what ISOC has done — their position was reflected in their public comments and Narelle has been putting it forth to us. > On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > I did not hear universal support for actively reaching out. I heard some > people say explicitly that the initiative should not come from us. I for > one find such outreach rather pathetic and weakening our credibility. If > I am the really only one then fine. So if noone else speaks up I will > drop that particular point. > > Daniel > > On 19.10.15 10:30 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >> Daniel: >> >> I think the concept was that we could reach out to see if an >> implementation role for us was needed, with Jean-Jacques suggesting it >> needed to be a canvass of all communities, not just OCs. I concur that >> the validation of implementation work had to be external, not >> self-determined. >> >> Joe >> >> On 10/18/2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>> >>> On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>> ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in >>>> favour of reaching out to our communities. ... >>> It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the >>> initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully >>> even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Mon Oct 19 16:33:42 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:33:42 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <2C424850-4AC3-47C5-BC58-2E836A4E95D1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <6517771.187.1445272420832.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Alissa, initially I supported the idea of sending a single message to all the communities we represent. But your suggestion has the advantage of keeping things informal, the equivalent of our "getting the temperature of the room". I would therefore support it. If your proposal was not accepted by a majority of colleagues, I would then insist that there be a single message to all our communities. Thanks. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Daniel Karrenberg" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 17:23:14 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts I don’t see a need to craft a specific question and send that question to each community. We were each sent to the ICG from a particular community. Those who think their communities have an interest in this could go consult with our communities, we could set a deadline, and then have a conversation about it after the deadline. This is my basic understanding of what ISOC has done — their position was reflected in their public comments and Narelle has been putting it forth to us. > On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > I did not hear universal support for actively reaching out. I heard some > people say explicitly that the initiative should not come from us. I for > one find such outreach rather pathetic and weakening our credibility. If > I am the really only one then fine. So if noone else speaks up I will > drop that particular point. > > Daniel > > On 19.10.15 10:30 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >> Daniel: >> >> I think the concept was that we could reach out to see if an >> implementation role for us was needed, with Jean-Jacques suggesting it >> needed to be a canvass of all communities, not just OCs. I concur that >> the validation of implementation work had to be external, not >> self-determined. >> >> Joe >> >> On 10/18/2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>> >>> On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>> ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in >>>> favour of reaching out to our communities. ... >>> It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the >>> initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully >>> even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Oct 19 17:36:55 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:36:55 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. In-Reply-To: <22720217.147.1445271119923.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> References: <05f401d10a7d$1b557470$52005d50$@icgsec.asia> <22720217.147.1445271119923.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: <062601d10a94$c1f60b20$45e22160$@icgsec.asia> Dear Jean-Jacques and all, As requested, attached and linked below, please find a version of the summary document with Jean-Jacques' tracked changes. Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1MzoPYB Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:12 PM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: Joseph Alhadeff ; internal-cg at ianacg.org; manal at tra.gov.eg Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. Dear All, because of some technical problem, currently I cannot do corrections on the proposed text in Dropbox. I would therefore kindly request Secretariat to transfer my proposed corrections (enclosed) to the right location in Dropbox. Thank you. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: "Joseph Alhadeff" , internal-cg at ianacg.org, manal at tra.gov.eg Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 15:47:36 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. Dear All, Please find the summary document circulated by Manal and Joe previously. Fig. 2 has been updated to the version as used during the ICG Engagement Session slide deck this morning. Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1GmrR5Q 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 Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 3:56 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org; manal at tra.gov.eg Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. A slight edit to Manal's email, the document was compiled by her with some help from me. Thanks for all of your work! Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] Received: Thursday, 15 Oct 2015, 5:27PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] CC: joseph alhadeff (joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com) [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; Alissa Cooper (alissa at cooperw.in) [alissa at cooperw.in] Subject: Public Comment Summary Report .. Dear All .. With sincere apologies for the delay, please find attached the Public Comment Summary Report, compiled by Joe and myself, as agreed during our face-to-face meeting in LA .. It is basically comprised of text drafted by colleagues who volunteered (or were volunteered :)), and agreed on the mailing list by ICG members .. Kindly note that: - All sources, to our best, are included in green italics between square brackets .. - There are still highlights in yellow and comments where we were not sure, but thought to move the discussion to the list .. - Suggested edits to the agreed text are marked in track changes .. - Where there are 2 slightly different versions of the same text, both are included for us to decide .. Looking forward to our discussions in Dublin .. Safe travels to everyone .. Kind Regards --Manal PS: Joe and I worked on different versions and I'm attaching a merge, so all edits appear to come from me .. Yet I tried to mark Joe's comments as received .. Joe, please feel free to flag any inaccuracies .. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 - 15Oct15-with-chart-JJS.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 155374 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Mon Oct 19 17:56:07 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:56:07 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. In-Reply-To: <062601d10a94$c1f60b20$45e22160$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <6991815.203.1445277366700.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Thank you Jennifer! JJ. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: "Jean-Jacques' 'Subrenat" Cc: "Joseph Alhadeff" , internal-cg at ianacg.org, manal at tra.gov.eg Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 18:36:55 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. Dear Jean-Jacques and all, As requested, attached and linked below, please find a version of the summary document with Jean-Jacques' tracked changes. Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1MzoPYB Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:12 PM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: Joseph Alhadeff ; internal-cg at ianacg.org; manal at tra.gov.eg Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. Dear All, because of some technical problem, currently I cannot do corrections on the proposed text in Dropbox. I would therefore kindly request Secretariat to transfer my proposed corrections (enclosed) to the right location in Dropbox. Thank you. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: "Joseph Alhadeff" , internal-cg at ianacg.org, manal at tra.gov.eg Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 15:47:36 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. Dear All, Please find the summary document circulated by Manal and Joe previously. Fig. 2 has been updated to the version as used during the ICG Engagement Session slide deck this morning. Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1GmrR5Q 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 Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 3:56 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org; manal at tra.gov.eg Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. A slight edit to Manal's email, the document was compiled by her with some help from me. Thanks for all of your work! Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] Received: Thursday, 15 Oct 2015, 5:27PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] CC: joseph alhadeff (joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com) [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; Alissa Cooper (alissa at cooperw.in) [alissa at cooperw.in] Subject: Public Comment Summary Report .. Dear All .. With sincere apologies for the delay, please find attached the Public Comment Summary Report, compiled by Joe and myself, as agreed during our face-to-face meeting in LA .. It is basically comprised of text drafted by colleagues who volunteered (or were volunteered :)), and agreed on the mailing list by ICG members .. Kindly note that: - All sources, to our best, are included in green italics between square brackets .. - There are still highlights in yellow and comments where we were not sure, but thought to move the discussion to the list .. - Suggested edits to the agreed text are marked in track changes .. - Where there are 2 slightly different versions of the same text, both are included for us to decide .. Looking forward to our discussions in Dublin .. Safe travels to everyone .. Kind Regards --Manal PS: Joe and I worked on different versions and I'm attaching a merge, so all edits appear to come from me .. Yet I tried to mark Joe's comments as received .. Joe, please feel free to flag any inaccuracies .. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Tue Oct 20 06:01:35 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:01:35 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <2C424850-4AC3-47C5-BC58-2E836A4E95D1@cooperw.in> References: <1200403.112.1445172626354.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <56239CF9.4050103@ripe.net> <5624AA0A.60700@oracle.com> <56250F01.1010807@ripe.net> <2C424850-4AC3-47C5-BC58-2E836A4E95D1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <5625D8BF.1000301@ripe.net> That is a *good* way forward. On 19.10.15 18:23 , Alissa Cooper wrote: > I don’t see a need to craft a specific question and send that question to each community. We were each sent to the ICG from a particular community. Those who think their communities have an interest in this could go consult with our communities, we could set a deadline, and then have a conversation about it after the deadline. This is my basic understanding of what ISOC has done — their position was reflected in their public comments and Narelle has been putting it forth to us. > >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> >> I did not hear universal support for actively reaching out. I heard some >> people say explicitly that the initiative should not come from us. I for >> one find such outreach rather pathetic and weakening our credibility. If >> I am the really only one then fine. So if noone else speaks up I will >> drop that particular point. >> >> Daniel >> >> On 19.10.15 10:30 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >>> Daniel: >>> >>> I think the concept was that we could reach out to see if an >>> implementation role for us was needed, with Jean-Jacques suggesting it >>> needed to be a canvass of all communities, not just OCs. I concur that >>> the validation of implementation work had to be external, not >>> self-determined. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> On 10/18/2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>>> ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in >>>>> favour of reaching out to our communities. ... >>>> It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the >>>> initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully >>>> even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Oct 20 09:49:30 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:49:30 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B78810@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <03d101d10059$96c5f4a0$c451dde0$@icgsec.asia> <00940823-6F4C-456C-B036-DB5DEDB43DEB@frobbit.se> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B78810@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <554AADBF-FF05-4887-9020-228B1E5FE97C@cooperw.in> I think Patrik’s explanation is good and given that our mailing list archive is public we can consider this item closed. Alissa > On Oct 17, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > > A very heartfelt +1 to Kavouss here! > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh > Sent: 15 October 2015 16:46 > To: Patrik Fältström; Alissa Cooper; Mohamed El Bashir > Cc: ICG > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum > > No comments on the objection raised by Richard, > But pls kindly avoid to open a new and boring round of discussion on what consensus signifies. You never reach any conclusion . > Kavouss > > 2015-10-15 14:25 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström >: > On 6 Oct 2015, at 19:08, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > > Please find the comment received on the ICG forum, details below: > > > > > > Tuesday 6 Oct: Richard Hill - "How are you defining consensus?" - > > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-October/000006.html > > > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Suggested description, to be confirmed by ICG: > > ICG do separate consensus for the content of the proposals from each one of the operational communities from consensus that the proposals are implementable (etc). ICG validates that the operational communities do have consensus for the proposals put forward to ICG and then seek consensus in ICG for the compatibility. > > In this process, we have separated the objections in three categories: > > - Comments that do believe NTIA made the wrong decision, which are out of scope for ICG > > - Comments that are on each OC proposal, which has consensus already within each OC, where ICG validate with the OC that the issue have been discussed already (that the correct process have been followed) > > - Comments that are on the ICG evaluation on interoperability and compatibility > > On the last point, after reviewing the public comments, the ICG has consensus that the proposals are compatible and interoperable. > > Patrik Fältström > ICG Co-chair > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com Tue Oct 20 12:15:58 2015 From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:15:58 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <6517771.187.1445272420832.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> References: <6517771.187.1445272420832.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: I also support this way forward. Lynn On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:33 PM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" wrote: > Alissa, > > initially I supported the idea of sending a single message to all the communities we represent. But your suggestion has the advantage of keeping things informal, the equivalent of our "getting the temperature of the room". I would therefore support it. > > If your proposal was not accepted by a majority of colleagues, I would then insist that there be a single message to all our communities. > > Thanks. > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alissa Cooper" > À: "Daniel Karrenberg" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 17:23:14 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts > > I don’t see a need to craft a specific question and send that question to each community. We were each sent to the ICG from a particular community. Those who think their communities have an interest in this could go consult with our communities, we could set a deadline, and then have a conversation about it after the deadline. This is my basic understanding of what ISOC has done — their position was reflected in their public comments and Narelle has been putting it forth to us. > >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> >> I did not hear universal support for actively reaching out. I heard some >> people say explicitly that the initiative should not come from us. I for >> one find such outreach rather pathetic and weakening our credibility. If >> I am the really only one then fine. So if noone else speaks up I will >> drop that particular point. >> >> Daniel >> >> On 19.10.15 10:30 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >>> Daniel: >>> >>> I think the concept was that we could reach out to see if an >>> implementation role for us was needed, with Jean-Jacques suggesting it >>> needed to be a canvass of all communities, not just OCs. I concur that >>> the validation of implementation work had to be external, not >>> self-determined. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> On 10/18/2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>>> ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in >>>>> favour of reaching out to our communities. ... >>>> It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the >>>> initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully >>>> even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Tue Oct 20 12:46:54 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:46:54 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <6517771.187.1445272420832.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: <562637BE.3040503@oracle.com> My only concern about this process is that if only a couple of communities go through this informal process does that create a valid basis for us to move forward with an implementation role? A number of us had concerns with ANY unilateral bootstrapping of an extended mandate... On 10/20/2015 8:15 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > I also support this way forward. > > Lynn > > On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:33 PM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" wrote: > >> Alissa, >> >> initially I supported the idea of sending a single message to all the communities we represent. But your suggestion has the advantage of keeping things informal, the equivalent of our "getting the temperature of the room". I would therefore support it. >> >> If your proposal was not accepted by a majority of colleagues, I would then insist that there be a single message to all our communities. >> >> Thanks. >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Alissa Cooper" >> À: "Daniel Karrenberg" >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 17:23:14 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts >> >> I don’t see a need to craft a specific question and send that question to each community. We were each sent to the ICG from a particular community. Those who think their communities have an interest in this could go consult with our communities, we could set a deadline, and then have a conversation about it after the deadline. This is my basic understanding of what ISOC has done — their position was reflected in their public comments and Narelle has been putting it forth to us. >> >>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>> >>> I did not hear universal support for actively reaching out. I heard some >>> people say explicitly that the initiative should not come from us. I for >>> one find such outreach rather pathetic and weakening our credibility. If >>> I am the really only one then fine. So if noone else speaks up I will >>> drop that particular point. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> On 19.10.15 10:30 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >>>> Daniel: >>>> >>>> I think the concept was that we could reach out to see if an >>>> implementation role for us was needed, with Jean-Jacques suggesting it >>>> needed to be a canvass of all communities, not just OCs. I concur that >>>> the validation of implementation work had to be external, not >>>> self-determined. >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On 10/18/2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>>> On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>>>> ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in >>>>>> favour of reaching out to our communities. ... >>>>> It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say that the >>>>> initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite carefully >>>>> even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Tue Oct 20 13:13:05 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:13:05 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts In-Reply-To: <562637BE.3040503@oracle.com> References: <6517771.187.1445272420832.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> <562637BE.3040503@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56263DE1.1030905@ripe.net> If the communities have not heard our discussion about this they are deaf. If they do not realise that widespread support is needed to give an extension of our mandate credibility they live in a different reality. So let's spread the word informally as suggested and evaluate requests when we get them. Daniel On 20.10.15 14:46 , joseph alhadeff wrote: > My only concern about this process is that if only a couple of > communities go through this informal process does that create a valid > basis for us to move forward with an implementation role? A number of > us had concerns with ANY unilateral bootstrapping of an extended mandate... > > On 10/20/2015 8:15 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >> I also support this way forward. >> >> Lynn >> >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:33 PM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" >> wrote: >> >>> Alissa, >>> >>> initially I supported the idea of sending a single message to all the >>> communities we represent. But your suggestion has the advantage of >>> keeping things informal, the equivalent of our "getting the >>> temperature of the room". I would therefore support it. >>> >>> If your proposal was not accepted by a majority of colleagues, I >>> would then insist that there be a single message to all our communities. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> Jean-Jacques. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Alissa Cooper" >>> À: "Daniel Karrenberg" >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 17:23:14 >>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts >>> >>> I don’t see a need to craft a specific question and send that >>> question to each community. We were each sent to the ICG from a >>> particular community. Those who think their communities have an >>> interest in this could go consult with our communities, we could set >>> a deadline, and then have a conversation about it after the deadline. >>> This is my basic understanding of what ISOC has done — their position >>> was reflected in their public comments and Narelle has been putting >>> it forth to us. >>> >>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I did not hear universal support for actively reaching out. I heard >>>> some >>>> people say explicitly that the initiative should not come from us. I >>>> for >>>> one find such outreach rather pathetic and weakening our >>>> credibility. If >>>> I am the really only one then fine. So if noone else speaks up I will >>>> drop that particular point. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> On 19.10.15 10:30 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >>>>> Daniel: >>>>> >>>>> I think the concept was that we could reach out to see if an >>>>> implementation role for us was needed, with Jean-Jacques suggesting it >>>>> needed to be a canvass of all communities, not just OCs. I concur >>>>> that >>>>> the validation of implementation work had to be external, not >>>>> self-determined. >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> On 10/18/2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>>>> On 18.10.15 14:50 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>>>>> ... in this morning's discussion I felt there was a majority view in >>>>>>> favour of reaching out to our communities. ... >>>>>> It did not feel like that to me. I heard quite a few people say >>>>>> that the >>>>>> initiative would have to come from outside. I listened quite >>>>>> carefully >>>>>> even though I admit to be handicapped by not being in the room. >>>>>> >>>>>> Daniel >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Oct 20 14:20:04 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:20:04 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer Message-ID: <48C87466-E25D-4AE4-BEC5-05E765519CDB@cooperw.in> I took an action on the weekend to draft up a status announcement to go on our web site and a disclaimer to go on the title page of the proposal to indicate its status. Of course we need to finish the proposal first but I want to share these now so people have time to review them before we meet on Friday. These leverage the formulation provided by Daniel to explain the dependency. I have also promulgated this in the proposal itself and will be circulating that updated document shortly. Status announcement: ICG Awaits Conclusion of Work on ICANN-Level Accountability Mechanisms The ICG has finalized the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal with the exception of one outstanding item: confirmation from the CWG that its requirements related to ICANN-level accountability mechanisms have been met. These mechanisms are currently under development in the CCWG. Once the CWG has confirmed that its requirements have been met, the ICG will send the transition proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA. Disclaimer for the title page of the proposal: INTERIM PROPOSAL This document has not yet been finalized. The names portion of the proposal, developed by the CWG, is complete on the condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms, currently under development in the CCWG, are concluded as specified in the names portion of the proposal. Before finalizing and sending this document to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Tue Oct 20 14:27:34 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:27:34 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?Draft_status_announcement_and_front_page_?= =?utf-8?q?disclaimer?= Message-ID: <20151020142556.682A81C13D5@smtp.notifymdm.com> We may wish to highlight some of the changes that got me as a result of comments? Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in] Received: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2015, 10:21AM To: ICG [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer I took an action on the weekend to draft up a status announcement to go on our web site and a disclaimer to go on the title page of the proposal to indicate its status. Of course we need to finish the proposal first but I want to share these now so people have time to review them before we meet on Friday. These leverage the formulation provided by Daniel to explain the dependency. I have also promulgated this in the proposal itself and will be circulating that updated document shortly. Status announcement: ICG Awaits Conclusion of Work on ICANN-Level Accountability Mechanisms The ICG has finalized the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal with the exception of one outstanding item: confirmation from the CWG that its requirements related to ICANN-level accountability mechanisms have been met. These mechanisms are currently under development in the CCWG. Once the CWG has confirmed that its requirements have been met, the ICG will send the transition proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA. Disclaimer for the title page of the proposal: INTERIM PROPOSAL This document has not yet been finalized. The names portion of the proposal, developed by the CWG, is complete on the condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms, currently under development in the CCWG, are concluded as specified in the names portion of the proposal. Before finalizing and sending this document to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. From jjs at dyalog.net Tue Oct 20 14:35:41 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:35:41 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <20151020142556.682A81C13D5@smtp.notifymdm.com> Message-ID: <239376.490.1445351737028.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Alissa, fine with me. Just a minor correction: it would make sense to spell Names with a capital N, throughout. Thanks. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Joseph Alhadeff" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org, alissa at cooperw.in Envoyé: Mardi 20 Octobre 2015 15:27:34 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer We may wish to highlight some of the changes that got me as a result of comments? Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in] Received: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2015, 10:21AM To: ICG [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer I took an action on the weekend to draft up a status announcement to go on our web site and a disclaimer to go on the title page of the proposal to indicate its status. Of course we need to finish the proposal first but I want to share these now so people have time to review them before we meet on Friday. These leverage the formulation provided by Daniel to explain the dependency. I have also promulgated this in the proposal itself and will be circulating that updated document shortly. Status announcement: ICG Awaits Conclusion of Work on ICANN-Level Accountability Mechanisms The ICG has finalized the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal with the exception of one outstanding item: confirmation from the CWG that its requirements related to ICANN-level accountability mechanisms have been met. These mechanisms are currently under development in the CCWG. Once the CWG has confirmed that its requirements have been met, the ICG will send the transition proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA. Disclaimer for the title page of the proposal: INTERIM PROPOSAL This document has not yet been finalized. The names portion of the proposal, developed by the CWG, is complete on the condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms, currently under development in the CCWG, are concluded as specified in the names portion of the proposal. Before finalizing and sending this document to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Oct 20 16:07:27 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:07:27 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 Message-ID: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5.docx?dl=0 Edits made: - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v5.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 987303 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Oct 20 16:20:04 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:20:04 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agendas for Dublin In-Reply-To: <21162BED-0171-4717-A210-B1D982FF576E@cooperw.in> References: <21162BED-0171-4717-A210-B1D982FF576E@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <79AD0BDE-013B-4E25-9750-C26732BB705D@cooperw.in> Updated agendas for Thursday and Friday. Joe is unable to join on Friday so we are starting with the public comment summary document on Thursday. Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-F2F-7-agenda-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 78312 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > On Oct 17, 2015, at 10:46 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Updated based on today’s discussion. > > >> On Oct 17, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> Minor updates attached. >> >> >>> On Oct 12, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> Please see attached. Note that each day’s agenda is dependent on what we get done on the previous day and what happens during the ICANN week. We will need to update the Thursday and Friday agendas as the week progresses. >>> >>> Please send your feedback. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Tue Oct 20 21:28:40 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:28:40 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a bit. The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. paf On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5.docx?dl=0 > > Edits made: > > - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except the two people wanted to retain) > - Edited and aligned all references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by Daniel) > - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per Patrik) > - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct statistics (per Lynn) > - Edited implementation bullet item related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) > > Alissa > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Wed Oct 21 00:14:24 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:14:24 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] ISOC CEO statement on the transition Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEDCA5@ACCAN01.accan.local> FYI We're Almost There... IANA Stewardship Transition 20 October 2015 MS. KATHRYN BROWN President/CEO Since Friday, I have been listening to and, yes, talking to many in Dublin who are engaged in the multistakeholder effort to transition the IANA functions. Our goal is an orderly transition that both reaffirms the strength of the global multistakeholder model while protecting and preserving the coordinated, well-functioning administration of the unique identifiers that are the core of the technical genius of the Internet. There is a sense of momentum here in Dublin that feels like we are in reach of success as a Community. The IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has a strong draft proposal on how to replace the role of the NTIA in a way that ensures the continued stability and security of the IANA functions. The co-chair has indicated that she intends to wrap up discussions on Friday. As for accountability, it is always the case that the last bits of any agreement are the hardest--that's why they are the last. The result of the CCWG's work on Friday and Saturday seems like a breakthrough. The CCWG's "escalation" slide[1] was clear --at least to me--in laying out a coherent and effective way forward no matter which model is ultimately chosen. It appears that the "dependencies" between the ICG and CCWG proposals (raised in our Comments and elsewhere) are on their way to being solved. Moreover, and importantly, in the emerging proposal the community is empowered to ensure ICANN's accountability to its stakeholders. This engagement-escalation-enforcement approach provides multiple opportunities for the community, the ICANN Board, and the ICANN staff to work together to resolve disputes via community consensus rather than turning immediately--or at all--to the courts. We think this is a very constructive approach that keeps power in the multistakeholder community where it belongs. These refinements to strengthen accountability, to map out a path forward for the stable and secure operations of IANA, and to empower the ICANN community to exercise appropriate oversight over ICANN are most encouraging. Rough consensus has been the motto of the Internet for decades and we think we are moving towards that this week. There comes a moment to grab consensus knowing that the community has done the hard work of satisfying the fundamentals of its Charter --meeting the criteria for success that has been set forth, not just by NTIA, but by and for itself. The ICG has proposed a plan that incorporates the solid recommendations of the operational communities and the CCWG is on the verge of doing the same for ICANN community empowerment in the new role that will be entrusted to ICANN at the conclusion of the transition. ISOC is, frankly, in awe of the work that has been done. We believe getting the last bits resolved is possible -- and probable -- before this week ends. From: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/10/were-almost-there-iana-stewardship-transition -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Wed Oct 21 03:34:20 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:34:20 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal In-Reply-To: References: <33c6mgm1hkj91x0a68c1y1lo.1445245792238@email.android.com> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEDCE6@ACCAN01.accan.local> The paragraphs you refer to cover a lot of detail. The part we were suggesting runs to the scope of the overall proposal generation, and therefore has a good home in part 0. I’m not fussed either way. Particularly given there are other tlds or matters that could be similarly described. Narelle From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 12:53 AM To: Narelle Clark Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal Hi Narelle, I’m unclear on why we would put this in part 0. These points are already reflected in paragraphs 2018, 2033, and 3047 of the proposal. Alissa On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Narelle Clark > wrote: Proposed Text: The additional domains under .arpa, such as “in-addr.arpa” and “ip6.arpa”, do not occur in the root zone. The provision of these services are solely under the purview of the IAB as the authority of the .ARPA registry and therefore not included in the transition as existing systems will continue to apply. Include references: https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2000/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ RFC 3172 defines the Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for .ARPA. -----8 <---------8 <------------- I had suggested this go into the section 'Workability' because it should go with the piece on the RZM. I now think that both of those paragraphs should go in under the heading 'Completeness and Clarity' at the end. These are parts that are not addressed in the combined proposal and everyone is happy that they aren't. Both seem more relevant there. Narelle _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Oct 21 08:55:52 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:55:52 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEDCE6@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <33c6mgm1hkj91x0a68c1y1lo.1445245792238@email.android.com> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEDCE6@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <2A6D528B-A795-4768-81E5-662DC0CB41C9@apnic.net> I’m also not fussed about this; was merely following up with Narelle to action some suggestions that we both made in that teleconf meeting. From my previous search, I couldn’t see these specific references included anywhere in the transition plan - so again it seemed worthwhile to add them somewhere. Paul. On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:34, Narelle Clark wrote: > The paragraphs you refer to cover a lot of detail. The part we were suggesting runs to the scope of the overall proposal generation, and therefore has a good home in part 0. > > I’m not fussed either way. Particularly given there are other tlds or matters that could be similarly described. > > > Narelle > > > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 12:53 AM > To: Narelle Clark > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal > > Hi Narelle, > > I’m unclear on why we would put this in part 0. These points are already reflected in paragraphs 2018, 2033, and 3047 of the proposal. > > Alissa > > On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Narelle Clark > wrote: > > > > > > Proposed Text: > > The additional domains under .arpa, such as “in-addr.arpa” and “ip6.arpa”, do not occur in the root zone. The provision of these services are solely under the purview of the IAB as the authority of the .ARPA registry and therefore not included in the transition as existing systems will continue to apply. > > Include references: > https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2000/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ > RFC 3172 defines the Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for .ARPA. > > -----8 <---------8 <------------- > > I had suggested this go into the section 'Workability' because it should go with the piece on the RZM. > > I now think that both of those paragraphs should go in under the heading 'Completeness and Clarity' at the end. These are parts that are not addressed in the combined proposal and everyone is happy that they aren't. > > Both seem more relevant there. > > > Narelle > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3582 bytes Desc: S/MIME digital signature URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Oct 21 09:43:04 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:43:04 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc Message-ID: Hi all, On Friday we have an agenda slot to discuss ongoing role of ICG in implementation (if any). My reading of the discussion so far is that we don’t have consensus to change or extend the role of the ICG itself, but we do have some agreement that there is a role in the implementation process which does need to be filled; to track implementation progress, handle communications and any reporting, assist IANA with priorities and sequencing, etc etc. Personally I think it is quite a lightweight role, but an important one nevertheless. I agree with the comments that this type of role is not for the IGC, but much better for a new working group (by some name and description) which would be freshly established by the OCs. However I do believe that it is within the ICG’s mandate to recommend such a mechanism, as a legitimate part of the plan itself. It may still then be up to the OCs to agree, then to assign their reps to the group and work out the finer details of its operations. Thoughts? Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Wed Oct 21 09:57:56 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 05:57:56 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562761A4.6040003@oracle.com> Paul: I don't see any group necessarily better positioned than ICG for the work as we represent the broad range of interested stakeholders on who implementation would have impact. The technical issues will be dealt with by the OCs, as appropriate, but the broader issues related to process, coordination and transparency are well suited to us. I have not read our conversations as suggesting the role is not appropriate, but rather a concern that it is not purely self-appointed. Joe On 10/21/2015 5:43 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Hi all, > > On Friday we have an agenda slot to discuss ongoing role of ICG in > implementation (if any). > > My reading of the discussion so far is that we don’t have consensus to > change or extend the role of the ICG itself, but we do have some > agreement that there is a role in the implementation process which > does need to be filled; to track implementation progress, handle > communications and any reporting, assist IANA with priorities and > sequencing, etc etc. Personally I think it is quite a lightweight > role, but an important one nevertheless. > > I agree with the comments that this type of role is not for the IGC, > but much better for a new working group (by some name and description) > which would be freshly established by the OCs. However I do believe > that it is within the ICG’s mandate to recommend such a mechanism, as > a legitimate part of the plan itself. It may still then be up to the > OCs to agree, then to assign their reps to the group and work out the > finer details of its operations. > > Thoughts? > > Paul. > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Oct 21 10:04:42 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:04:42 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Paul, > On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Hi all, > > On Friday we have an agenda slot to discuss ongoing role of ICG in implementation (if any). > > My reading of the discussion so far is that we don’t have consensus to change or extend the role of the ICG itself, but we do have some agreement that there is a role in the implementation process which does need to be filled; to track implementation progress, handle communications and any reporting, assist IANA with priorities and sequencing, etc etc. Personally I think it is quite a lightweight role, but an important one nevertheless. > > I agree with the comments that this type of role is not for the IGC, but much better for a new working group (by some name and description) which would be freshly established by the OCs. I don’t see this as a single working group populated by OC people. The OCs already have their own people and teams who are handling the various different implementation issues, and it’s not all the same people handling the different issues, so I think it would be a mistake to task all the handling of implementation to a single group. For example, the CWG has Design Team O working on PTI budget issues. This is all already proceeding in a distributed fashion and we should let it continue that way in my opinion. The one exception to this might be if there is a desire to have a centralized progress reporting mechanism for all of the implementation tasks. That would probably be easier if it had a single owner and all of the OCs and ICANN could provide input into it. Not clear to me whether or not that is needed since each OC could maintain its own progress reporting. But if people think it is needed then it may be sensible for it to have a single owner. Alissa > However I do believe that it is within the ICG’s mandate to recommend such a mechanism, as a legitimate part of the plan itself. It may still then be up to the OCs to agree, then to assign their reps to the group and work out the finer details of its operations. > > Thoughts? > > Paul. > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Oct 21 10:26:32 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 20:26:32 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi Paul, > >> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> On Friday we have an agenda slot to discuss ongoing role of ICG in implementation (if any). >> >> My reading of the discussion so far is that we don’t have consensus to change or extend the role of the ICG itself, but we do have some agreement that there is a role in the implementation process which does need to be filled; to track implementation progress, handle communications and any reporting, assist IANA with priorities and sequencing, etc etc. Personally I think it is quite a lightweight role, but an important one nevertheless. >> >> I agree with the comments that this type of role is not for the IGC, but much better for a new working group (by some name and description) which would be freshly established by the OCs. > > I don’t see this as a single working group populated by OC people. The OCs already have their own people and teams who are handling the various different implementation issues, and it’s not all the same people handling the different issues, so I think it would be a mistake to task all the handling of implementation to a single group. For example, the CWG has Design Team O working on PTI budget issues. This is all already proceeding in a distributed fashion and we should let it continue that way in my opinion. I agree 100%. > > The one exception to this might be if there is a desire to have a centralized progress reporting mechanism for all of the implementation tasks. That would probably be easier if it had a single owner and all of the OCs and ICANN could provide input into it. Not clear to me whether or not that is needed since each OC could maintain its own progress reporting. But if people think it is needed then it may be sensible for it to have a single owner. That’s one of the lightweight functions - progress reporting. But also as I mentioned, the need to assist IANA with its management of a long list of implementation steps that they will otherwise need to manage alone. This is where cross-community coordination may be needed, though again it is a lightweight function. To be frank, a simple mailing list might do it, but I have assumed that a little (not much) more formality may be called for. Paul. > > Alissa > >> However I do believe that it is within the ICG’s mandate to recommend such a mechanism, as a legitimate part of the plan itself. It may still then be up to the OCs to agree, then to assign their reps to the group and work out the finer details of its operations. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Paul. >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3582 bytes Desc: S/MIME digital signature URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Wed Oct 21 10:34:44 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:34:44 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <19847393.45.1445423679991.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Alissa & All, if there was any notion that only some parts of the ICG would be involved, I would report this to the ALAC. Allow me to repeat the points I've made on several occasions: - NTIA gave a task to the whole ICG, so any continuation concerns all the communities represented in the ICG; - we have a Charter, which must be respected; any change would require a new Charter, which my community would not accept, I think. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Paul Wilson" Cc: "ICG" Envoyé: Mercredi 21 Octobre 2015 11:04:42 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc Hi Paul, > On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Hi all, > > On Friday we have an agenda slot to discuss ongoing role of ICG in implementation (if any). > > My reading of the discussion so far is that we don’t have consensus to change or extend the role of the ICG itself, but we do have some agreement that there is a role in the implementation process which does need to be filled; to track implementation progress, handle communications and any reporting, assist IANA with priorities and sequencing, etc etc. Personally I think it is quite a lightweight role, but an important one nevertheless. > > I agree with the comments that this type of role is not for the IGC, but much better for a new working group (by some name and description) which would be freshly established by the OCs. I don’t see this as a single working group populated by OC people. The OCs already have their own people and teams who are handling the various different implementation issues, and it’s not all the same people handling the different issues, so I think it would be a mistake to task all the handling of implementation to a single group. For example, the CWG has Design Team O working on PTI budget issues. This is all already proceeding in a distributed fashion and we should let it continue that way in my opinion. The one exception to this might be if there is a desire to have a centralized progress reporting mechanism for all of the implementation tasks. That would probably be easier if it had a single owner and all of the OCs and ICANN could provide input into it. Not clear to me whether or not that is needed since each OC could maintain its own progress reporting. But if people think it is needed then it may be sensible for it to have a single owner. Alissa > However I do believe that it is within the ICG’s mandate to recommend such a mechanism, as a legitimate part of the plan itself. It may still then be up to the OCs to agree, then to assign their reps to the group and work out the finer details of its operations. > > Thoughts? > > Paul. > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com Wed Oct 21 10:52:57 2015 From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:52:57 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6295A9D7-5DC3-47DC-BCBD-50FE15F7BB1B@Internet-Matters.com> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > On 21 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> >>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> On Friday we have an agenda slot to discuss ongoing role of ICG in implementation (if any). >>> >>> My reading of the discussion so far is that we don’t have consensus to change or extend the role of the ICG itself, but we do have some agreement that there is a role in the implementation process which does need to be filled; to track implementation progress, handle communications and any reporting, assist IANA with priorities and sequencing, etc etc. Personally I think it is quite a lightweight role, but an important one nevertheless. >>> >>> I agree with the comments that this type of role is not for the IGC, but much better for a new working group (by some name and description) which would be freshly established by the OCs. >> >> I don’t see this as a single working group populated by OC people. The OCs already have their own people and teams who are handling the various different implementation issues, and it’s not all the same people handling the different issues, so I think it would be a mistake to task all the handling of implementation to a single group. For example, the CWG has Design Team O working on PTI budget issues. This is all already proceeding in a distributed fashion and we should let it continue that way in my opinion. > > I agree 100%. > >> >> The one exception to this might be if there is a desire to have a centralized progress reporting mechanism for all of the implementation tasks. That would probably be easier if it had a single owner and all of the OCs and ICANN could provide input into it. Not clear to me whether or not that is needed since each OC could maintain its own progress reporting. But if people think it is needed then it may be sensible for it to have a single owner. > > That’s one of the lightweight functions - progress reporting. But also as I mentioned, the need to assist IANA with its management of a long list of implementation steps that they will otherwise need to manage alone. This is where cross-community coordination may be needed, though again it is a lightweight function. To be frank, a simple mailing list might do it, but I have assumed that a little (not much) more formality may be called for. > > Paul. Paul, speaking personally only - IANA should be the group responsible for this. Managing transitions is a fairly standard part of any operation, and IANA can call together whomever they need to help with priorities, etc. If it needs to be escalated, they can escalate it to their management or to the OCs. It would actually be a good dry run for future operations. Lynn From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Oct 21 10:54:17 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:54:17 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ED8CF9-637F-4F02-ADE4-8A37F51EBB26@LStAmour.org> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > That’s one of the lightweight functions - progress reporting. But also as I mentioned, the need to assist IANA with its management of a long list of implementation steps that they will otherwise need to manage alone. This is where cross-community coordination may be needed, though again it is a lightweight function. To be frank, a simple mailing list might do it, but I have assumed that a little (not much) more formality may be called for. > > Paul. Paul, speaking personally only - IANA should be the group responsible for this. Managing transitions is a fairly standard part of any operation, and IANA can call together whomever they need to help with priorities, etc. If it needs to be escalated, they can escalate it to their management or to the OCs. It would actually be a good dry run for future operations. Lynn From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Wed Oct 21 10:54:46 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:54:46 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: <19847393.45.1445423679991.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <19847393.45.1445423679991.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <56276EF6.2030205@oracle.com> Agree that implementation is more than an OC concern, all stakeholders will be impacted by failures of implementation, perhaps even more so than by the proposal. Though let us be clear, just as in the proposal development we are not constraining the technical and operational needs/roles of the OCs... Also agree with Alissa about one owner of technical capacity for the master list, coordinated sequencing and prioritization of actions where needed. Joe On 10/21/2015 6:34 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Alissa & All, > > if there was any notion that only some parts of the ICG would be involved, I would report this to the ALAC. > > Allow me to repeat the points I've made on several occasions: > - NTIA gave a task to the whole ICG, so any continuation concerns all the communities represented in the ICG; > - we have a Charter, which must be respected; any change would require a new Charter, which my community would not accept, I think. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alissa Cooper" > À: "Paul Wilson" > Cc: "ICG" > Envoyé: Mercredi 21 Octobre 2015 11:04:42 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc > > Hi Paul, > >> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> On Friday we have an agenda slot to discuss ongoing role of ICG in implementation (if any). >> >> My reading of the discussion so far is that we don’t have consensus to change or extend the role of the ICG itself, but we do have some agreement that there is a role in the implementation process which does need to be filled; to track implementation progress, handle communications and any reporting, assist IANA with priorities and sequencing, etc etc. Personally I think it is quite a lightweight role, but an important one nevertheless. >> >> I agree with the comments that this type of role is not for the IGC, but much better for a new working group (by some name and description) which would be freshly established by the OCs. > I don’t see this as a single working group populated by OC people. The OCs already have their own people and teams who are handling the various different implementation issues, and it’s not all the same people handling the different issues, so I think it would be a mistake to task all the handling of implementation to a single group. For example, the CWG has Design Team O working on PTI budget issues. This is all already proceeding in a distributed fashion and we should let it continue that way in my opinion. > > The one exception to this might be if there is a desire to have a centralized progress reporting mechanism for all of the implementation tasks. That would probably be easier if it had a single owner and all of the OCs and ICANN could provide input into it. Not clear to me whether or not that is needed since each OC could maintain its own progress reporting. But if people think it is needed then it may be sensible for it to have a single owner. > > Alissa > >> However I do believe that it is within the ICG’s mandate to recommend such a mechanism, as a legitimate part of the plan itself. It may still then be up to the OCs to agree, then to assign their reps to the group and work out the finer details of its operations. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Paul. >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Oct 21 10:54:57 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:54:57 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <83BD3C74-CEC3-4734-A3AC-AD72D8BF36DD@LStAmour.org> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > That’s one of the lightweight functions - progress reporting. But also as I mentioned, the need to assist IANA with its management of a long list of implementation steps that they will otherwise need to manage alone. This is where cross-community coordination may be needed, though again it is a lightweight function. To be frank, a simple mailing list might do it, but I have assumed that a little (not much) more formality may be called for. > > Paul. Paul, speaking personally only - IANA should be the group responsible for this. Managing transitions is a fairly standard part of any operation, and IANA can call together whomever they need to help with priorities, etc. If it needs to be escalated, they can escalate it to their management or to the OCs. It would actually be a good dry run for future operations. Lynn From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Oct 21 11:08:46 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:08:46 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o n. https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all parties to implement it. X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. Daniel On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a > bit. > > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. > > paf > > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 .docx?dl=0 >> >> >> >> >> Edits made: >> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >> >> Alissa >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWJ3I+AAoJENDY5Emqa716BBEQAKX7t4kUQtBLQQIZs/ySEcO3 Pr7xDdvq6tT6Zim7ZGSN/+wP0nPVbBp/HR+ZhmkiXr99wwRWUJkD0K1ufSYQwvTP ByvMbLF5T4rLHqvBHroc1QF6pvk5ZVuJmMHFz0MtyEQnAEesgbpMjA5EaRVCqZkB Tu3RB8vcsdpzoEhPUOiyBxLQzMmcVRqmJAEDxj+3Cke20fJwYtYbCLn74sQTmgpu 0Z9eqS/M54d2YIxrIJU0uIEIwILzL8Fm+iKm+oEtsspm3dsjKCkcUaC0EUF9n+Vb sr/Ze+HzugXLQbw/V8BxWfQDky+C5cjrWUj9obWVYt0+4nRtRdXn1kSm9yYQyu3L h9UTyE72zm5ANyzOdfuMAAesFwqO5Z9Fagq8hhBrezw8hbp5KSGrJ731dFxiVqFD 54EsTPn/Ub5mhiQgGR+miF6JMbUNiaMwcMV/yBaKOMJ240SLd4wHT7pVGRRVmsMG XTFogdU9eNFaJuvlqN6F+Z/fcwTjK82xhE8emC4UTtLMFTLwdwftaWcV6so29GEH 3Hr/6EZwrlRqGGvGJqVR67sCR46eXfG+HHOfwNm917fSIGuvWVCXqW2BEx/R/2K+ MHIWwdxG6fM2p9TONbyF7XafYi+HoFEEoIAs1urdcnodiUaare/pvaD9QjPfsz13 Kz22KQ/iEQiIkFQ0IpCR =rbzH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Oct 21 12:22:53 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:22:53 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <20151020142556.682A81C13D5@smtp.notifymdm.com> References: <20151020142556.682A81C13D5@smtp.notifymdm.com> Message-ID: <5627839D.3040608@ripe.net> I do not like "interim". While strictly correct it conveys a subtext of "temporary". How about just "Document Status"? Also why notuse similar language and write: "This document is finalized with one execption: ..." in the disclaimer? Daniel On 20.10.15 16:27 , Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > We may wish to highlight some of the changes that got me as a result of comments? > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in] > Received: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2015, 10:21AM > To: ICG [internal-cg at ianacg.org] > Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer > > I took an action on the weekend to draft up a status announcement to go on our web site and a disclaimer to go on the title page of the proposal to indicate its status. Of course we need to finish the proposal first but I want to share these now so people have time to review them before we meet on Friday. > > These leverage the formulation provided by Daniel to explain the dependency. I have also promulgated this in the proposal itself and will be circulating that updated document shortly. > > > Status announcement: > > ICG Awaits Conclusion of Work on ICANN-Level Accountability Mechanisms > > The ICG has finalized the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal with the exception of one outstanding item: confirmation from the CWG that its requirements related to ICANN-level accountability mechanisms have been met. These mechanisms are currently under development in the CCWG. Once the CWG has confirmed that its requirements have been met, the ICG will send the transition proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA. > > > > Disclaimer for the title page of the proposal: > > INTERIM PROPOSAL > > This document has not yet been finalized. The names portion of the proposal, developed by the CWG, is complete on the condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms, currently under development in the CCWG, are concluded as specified in the names portion of the proposal. Before finalizing and sending this document to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Oct 21 12:39:30 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:39:30 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <5627839D.3040608@ripe.net> References: <20151020142556.682A81C13D5@smtp.notifymdm.com> <5627839D.3040608@ripe.net> Message-ID: Fair enough, we could just use the exact same text for the status update and the disclaimer. > On Oct 21, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > I do not like "interim". While strictly correct it conveys a subtext of > "temporary". How about just "Document Status"? > > Also why notuse similar language and write: > > "This document is finalized with one execption: ..." in the disclaimer? > > Daniel > > >> On 20.10.15 16:27 , Joseph Alhadeff wrote: >> We may wish to highlight some of the changes that got me as a result of comments? >> >> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in] >> Received: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2015, 10:21AM >> To: ICG [internal-cg at ianacg.org] >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer >> >> I took an action on the weekend to draft up a status announcement to go on our web site and a disclaimer to go on the title page of the proposal to indicate its status. Of course we need to finish the proposal first but I want to share these now so people have time to review them before we meet on Friday. >> >> These leverage the formulation provided by Daniel to explain the dependency. I have also promulgated this in the proposal itself and will be circulating that updated document shortly. >> >> >> Status announcement: >> >> ICG Awaits Conclusion of Work on ICANN-Level Accountability Mechanisms >> >> The ICG has finalized the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal with the exception of one outstanding item: confirmation from the CWG that its requirements related to ICANN-level accountability mechanisms have been met. These mechanisms are currently under development in the CCWG. Once the CWG has confirmed that its requirements have been met, the ICG will send the transition proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA. >> >> >> >> Disclaimer for the title page of the proposal: >> >> INTERIM PROPOSAL >> >> This document has not yet been finalized. The names portion of the proposal, developed by the CWG, is complete on the condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms, currently under development in the CCWG, are concluded as specified in the names portion of the proposal. Before finalizing and sending this document to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Wed Oct 21 13:05:51 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:05:51 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <5627839D.3040608@ripe.net> References: <20151020142556.682A81C13D5@smtp.notifymdm.com> <5627839D.3040608@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56278DAF.7060401@oracle.com> Perhaps Current Document Status or Updated Document Status to reflect that its not the same. On 10/21/2015 8:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > I do not like "interim". While strictly correct it conveys a subtext of > "temporary". How about just "Document Status"? > > Also why notuse similar language and write: > > "This document is finalized with one execption: ..." in the disclaimer? > > Daniel > > > On 20.10.15 16:27 , Joseph Alhadeff wrote: >> We may wish to highlight some of the changes that got me as a result of comments? >> >> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in] >> Received: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2015, 10:21AM >> To: ICG [internal-cg at ianacg.org] >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer >> >> I took an action on the weekend to draft up a status announcement to go on our web site and a disclaimer to go on the title page of the proposal to indicate its status. Of course we need to finish the proposal first but I want to share these now so people have time to review them before we meet on Friday. >> >> These leverage the formulation provided by Daniel to explain the dependency. I have also promulgated this in the proposal itself and will be circulating that updated document shortly. >> >> >> Status announcement: >> >> ICG Awaits Conclusion of Work on ICANN-Level Accountability Mechanisms >> >> The ICG has finalized the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal with the exception of one outstanding item: confirmation from the CWG that its requirements related to ICANN-level accountability mechanisms have been met. These mechanisms are currently under development in the CCWG. Once the CWG has confirmed that its requirements have been met, the ICG will send the transition proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA. >> >> >> >> Disclaimer for the title page of the proposal: >> >> INTERIM PROPOSAL >> >> This document has not yet been finalized. The names portion of the proposal, developed by the CWG, is complete on the condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms, currently under development in the CCWG, are concluded as specified in the names portion of the proposal. Before finalizing and sending this document to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> From jari.arkko at piuha.net Wed Oct 21 13:36:40 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:36:40 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <5627839D.3040608@ripe.net> References: <20151020142556.682A81C13D5@smtp.notifymdm.com> <5627839D.3040608@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4E134ED9-4A44-4322-BB36-13D95659809A@piuha.net> I liked the phrasing of the first page document disclaimer, but I found the announcement a bit hard to read. Could we use similar text for both? Also, >> We may wish to highlight some of the changes that got me as a result of comments? +1 Here’s one approach for the status announcement: ICG Completes Its Work and Awaits for Conclusion of iCANN-level Accountability Work The ICG concluded its work on the feedback received during the public review period for the IANA transition proposal. The ICG would like to thank for the feedback, which has been taken into account in a new version of the transition proposal (ref). Among other things, matters relating to handling of … have been clarified in this version. The full IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal is not complete due to a dependency on the naming portion. The numbers and protocol parameters portions of the proposal are complete, however, and have no dependencies on the work of the CCWG or any other remaining process. Indeed, implementation of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals has already been underway for months and can continue without waiting for the CCWG to complete its work. The naming part has been completed with one exception: confirmation from the CWG that its requirements related to ICANN-level accountability mechanisms have been met. These mechanisms are currently under development in the CCWG. Once the CWG has confirmed that its requirements have been met, the ICG will send the transition proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA. Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Wed Oct 21 13:45:08 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:45:08 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <4E134ED9-4A44-4322-BB36-13D95659809A@piuha.net> References: <20151020142556.682A81C13D5@smtp.notifymdm.com> <5627839D.3040608@ripe.net> <4E134ED9-4A44-4322-BB36-13D95659809A@piuha.net> Message-ID: <208D0DB3-BC67-4E52-AF65-90C7273C54B4@piuha.net> and > ICG Completes Its Work and Awaits for Conclusion of iCANN-level Accountability Work i meant of course … ICG Complete Its Public Review and Awaits for … jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Wed Oct 21 14:06:26 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:06:26 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: <6295A9D7-5DC3-47DC-BCBD-50FE15F7BB1B@Internet-Matters.com> Message-ID: <23395390.76.1445433651844.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> @Lynn +1. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Lynn St.Amour" À: "Paul Wilson" Cc: "ICG" Envoyé: Mercredi 21 Octobre 2015 11:52:57 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > On 21 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> >>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> On Friday we have an agenda slot to discuss ongoing role of ICG in implementation (if any). >>> >>> My reading of the discussion so far is that we don’t have consensus to change or extend the role of the ICG itself, but we do have some agreement that there is a role in the implementation process which does need to be filled; to track implementation progress, handle communications and any reporting, assist IANA with priorities and sequencing, etc etc. Personally I think it is quite a lightweight role, but an important one nevertheless. >>> >>> I agree with the comments that this type of role is not for the IGC, but much better for a new working group (by some name and description) which would be freshly established by the OCs. >> >> I don’t see this as a single working group populated by OC people. The OCs already have their own people and teams who are handling the various different implementation issues, and it’s not all the same people handling the different issues, so I think it would be a mistake to task all the handling of implementation to a single group. For example, the CWG has Design Team O working on PTI budget issues. This is all already proceeding in a distributed fashion and we should let it continue that way in my opinion. > > I agree 100%. > >> >> The one exception to this might be if there is a desire to have a centralized progress reporting mechanism for all of the implementation tasks. That would probably be easier if it had a single owner and all of the OCs and ICANN could provide input into it. Not clear to me whether or not that is needed since each OC could maintain its own progress reporting. But if people think it is needed then it may be sensible for it to have a single owner. > > That’s one of the lightweight functions - progress reporting. But also as I mentioned, the need to assist IANA with its management of a long list of implementation steps that they will otherwise need to manage alone. This is where cross-community coordination may be needed, though again it is a lightweight function. To be frank, a simple mailing list might do it, but I have assumed that a little (not much) more formality may be called for. > > Paul. Paul, speaking personally only - IANA should be the group responsible for this. Managing transitions is a fairly standard part of any operation, and IANA can call together whomever they need to help with priorities, etc. If it needs to be escalated, they can escalate it to their management or to the OCs. It would actually be a good dry run for future operations. Lynn _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jari.arkko at piuha.net Wed Oct 21 14:43:16 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:43:16 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: <23395390.76.1445433651844.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <23395390.76.1445433651844.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <3D5F7A4E-3AEF-4CE7-B133-27084A42608B@piuha.net> A couple of points. First, agree that there are several topics and several teams working together here. For instance, I feel that an IETF-ICANN SLA is something that we do between the ICANN and the IETF, and we won’t be needing too many other parties in that discussion. And the IPR topic is something that I think the three communities need to work on a requirements level, until the matter can be turned over to our admins and lawyers. PTI is something that is largely a matter of ICANN implementing, and then checking with CWG that they are happy. Although the rest of us may benefit from understanding status. I think I’d emphasise the role of the OCs in this. Not all of the effort is on IANA (or ICANN), even if they obvious are impacted in most if it not all issues. On priorities, I think it is actually simpler than the thickness of the document may let us to believe. Two communities have very small operational changes, changes being focused mostly on things like agreements. In some cases those agreements already exist and just await signing. I have a difficulty imagining any of those issues are going to be an issue for prioritisation. A bulk of the bigger changes are due CWG’s plan, quite appropriately, because more work needed there. But I think this also implies that the discussion between the priority of those various changes is probably something to be had between CWG and IANA. Subsidiarity principle. So I think I’m roughly where I was before: not opposed to someone like the ICG or a new group doing high-level tracking. But 99.5% of the work is in naturally forming groups, of different compositions. I believe we the iCG should direct as much of the work to be done as low in the organisation as possible. Also, should there be issues or disagreements, I also believe that the OCs are more than capable of raising issues to the rest of us or even public as needed. (And for the record, I’m involved in setting up or participating in many of these discussions. We’ve been active on public and private discussions around next steps in IPR discussions, for instance.) Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Oct 21 15:13:24 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 01:13:24 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: <3D5F7A4E-3AEF-4CE7-B133-27084A42608B@piuha.net> References: <23395390.76.1445433651844.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <3D5F7A4E-3AEF-4CE7-B133-27084A42608B@piuha.net> Message-ID: <34ABCD7C-CFFD-46E9-AFD4-594D8727DB70@apnic.net> Dear all, I’ve been consulting further with Alan and our RIR colleagues on these implementation questions. Three points: 1. Considering the components of numbers community plan, and the progress we have been making on implementation, the RIRs do not see any need for additional coordination mechanisms during the implementation process. 2. We do expect a process of regular reporting from ICANN on progress during the implementation process next year. Likewise, we will be reporting regularly to the numbers community. 3. We expect the ICG to be conclude its work with the approval of the transition plan by the NTIA. Thanks, Paul. On 22 Oct 2015, at 0:43, Jari Arkko wrote: > A couple of points. > > First, agree that there are several topics and several teams working together here. For instance, I feel that an IETF-ICANN SLA is something that we do between the ICANN and the IETF, and we won’t be needing too many other parties in that discussion. And the IPR topic is something that I think the three communities need to work on a requirements level, until the matter can be turned over to our admins and lawyers. PTI is something that is largely a matter of ICANN implementing, and then checking with CWG that they are happy. Although the rest of us may benefit from understanding status. > > I think I’d emphasise the role of the OCs in this. Not all of the effort is on IANA (or ICANN), even if they obvious are impacted in most if it not all issues. > > On priorities, I think it is actually simpler than the thickness of the document may let us to believe. Two communities have very small operational changes, changes being focused mostly on things like agreements. In some cases those agreements already exist and just await signing. I have a difficulty imagining any of those issues are going to be an issue for prioritisation. A bulk of the bigger changes are due CWG’s plan, quite appropriately, because more work needed there. But I think this also implies that the discussion between the priority of those various changes is probably something to be had between CWG and IANA. Subsidiarity principle. > > So I think I’m roughly where I was before: not opposed to someone like the ICG or a new group doing high-level tracking. But 99.5% of the work is in naturally forming groups, of different compositions. I believe we the iCG should direct as much of the work to be done as low in the organisation as possible. Also, should there be issues or disagreements, I also believe that the OCs are more than capable of raising issues to the rest of us or even public as needed. > > (And for the record, I’m involved in setting up or participating in many of these discussions. We’ve been active on public and private discussions around next steps in IPR discussions, for instance.) > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3582 bytes Desc: S/MIME digital signature URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Oct 21 15:45:44 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc In-Reply-To: <3D5F7A4E-3AEF-4CE7-B133-27084A42608B@piuha.net> References: <23395390.76.1445433651844.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <3D5F7A4E-3AEF-4CE7-B133-27084A42608B@piuha.net> Message-ID: Jari, thank you, this is a more complete articulation, and I support it fully. The more we can make it clear that the communities are responsible for establishing requirements (and IANA implements) the more we will help the world understand the model we all actually work to. Lynn On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > A couple of points. > > First, agree that there are several topics and several teams working together here. For instance, I feel that an IETF-ICANN SLA is something that we do between the ICANN and the IETF, and we won’t be needing too many other parties in that discussion. And the IPR topic is something that I think the three communities need to work on a requirements level, until the matter can be turned over to our admins and lawyers. PTI is something that is largely a matter of ICANN implementing, and then checking with CWG that they are happy. Although the rest of us may benefit from understanding status. > > I think I’d emphasise the role of the OCs in this. Not all of the effort is on IANA (or ICANN), even if they obvious are impacted in most if it not all issues. > > On priorities, I think it is actually simpler than the thickness of the document may let us to believe. Two communities have very small operational changes, changes being focused mostly on things like agreements. In some cases those agreements already exist and just await signing. I have a difficulty imagining any of those issues are going to be an issue for prioritisation. A bulk of the bigger changes are due CWG’s plan, quite appropriately, because more work needed there. But I think this also implies that the discussion between the priority of those various changes is probably something to be had between CWG and IANA. Subsidiarity principle. > > So I think I’m roughly where I was before: not opposed to someone like the ICG or a new group doing high-level tracking. But 99.5% of the work is in naturally forming groups, of different compositions. I believe we the iCG should direct as much of the work to be done as low in the organisation as possible. Also, should there be issues or disagreements, I also believe that the OCs are more than capable of raising issues to the rest of us or even public as needed. > > (And for the record, I’m involved in setting up or participating in many of these discussions. We’ve been active on public and private discussions around next steps in IPR discussions, for instance.) > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Oct 21 15:57:43 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:57:43 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal In-Reply-To: <2A6D528B-A795-4768-81E5-662DC0CB41C9@apnic.net> References: <33c6mgm1hkj91x0a68c1y1lo.1445245792238@email.android.com> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEDCE6@ACCAN01.accan.local> <2A6D528B-A795-4768-81E5-662DC0CB41C9@apnic.net> Message-ID: <89518C8C-F1B2-42E9-8EA0-5234CDDF00C6@cooperw.in> How about if we add a footnote to paragraph 62 (where there is already text about in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa) as follows: See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3172 and https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2000/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ for more information about .ARPA. > On Oct 21, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > I’m also not fussed about this; was merely following up with Narelle to action some suggestions that we both made in that teleconf meeting. > > From my previous search, I couldn’t see these specific references included anywhere in the transition plan - so again it seemed worthwhile to add them somewhere. > > Paul. > > > On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:34, Narelle Clark wrote: > >> The paragraphs you refer to cover a lot of detail. The part we were suggesting runs to the scope of the overall proposal generation, and therefore has a good home in part 0. >> >> I’m not fussed either way. Particularly given there are other tlds or matters that could be similarly described. >> >> >> Narelle >> >> >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >> Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 12:53 AM >> To: Narelle Clark >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal >> >> Hi Narelle, >> >> I’m unclear on why we would put this in part 0. These points are already reflected in paragraphs 2018, 2033, and 3047 of the proposal. >> >> Alissa >> >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Narelle Clark > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Proposed Text: >> >> The additional domains under .arpa, such as “in-addr.arpa” and “ip6.arpa”, do not occur in the root zone. The provision of these services are solely under the purview of the IAB as the authority of the .ARPA registry and therefore not included in the transition as existing systems will continue to apply. >> >> Include references: >> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2000/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ >> RFC 3172 defines the Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for .ARPA. >> >> -----8 <---------8 <------------- >> >> I had suggested this go into the section 'Workability' because it should go with the piece on the RZM. >> >> I now think that both of those paragraphs should go in under the heading 'Completeness and Clarity' at the end. These are parts that are not addressed in the combined proposal and everyone is happy that they aren't. >> >> Both seem more relevant there. >> >> >> Narelle >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Wed Oct 21 16:51:53 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:51:53 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <4E134ED9-4A44-4322-BB36-13D95659809A@piuha.net> References: <20151020142556.682A81C13D5@smtp.notifymdm.com> <5627839D.3040608@ripe.net> <4E134ED9-4A44-4322-BB36-13D95659809A@piuha.net> Message-ID: <5627C2A9.1090100@oracle.com> Who do we wish to thanks for the feedback? - Something is missing? The ICG would like to thank for the feedback, On 10/21/2015 9:36 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > I liked the phrasing of the first page document disclaimer, but I found the announcement a bit hard to read. Could we use similar text for both? > > Also, > >>> We may wish to highlight some of the changes that got me as a result of comments? > +1 > > Here’s one approach for the status announcement: > > ICG Completes Its Work and Awaits for Conclusion of iCANN-level Accountability Work > > The ICG concluded its work on the feedback received during the public review period for the IANA transition proposal. The ICG would like to thank for the feedback, which has been taken into account in a new version of the transition proposal (ref). Among other things, matters relating to handling of … have been clarified in this version. > > The full IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal is not complete due to a dependency on the naming portion. The numbers and protocol parameters portions of the proposal are complete, however, and have no dependencies on the work of the CCWG or any other remaining process. Indeed, implementation of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals has already been underway for months and can continue without waiting for the CCWG to complete its work. > > The naming part has been completed with one exception: confirmation from the CWG that its requirements related to ICANN-level accountability mechanisms have been met. These mechanisms are currently under development in the CCWG. Once the CWG has confirmed that its requirements have been met, the ICG will send the transition proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA. > > Jari > From jjs at dyalog.net Wed Oct 21 17:28:42 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:28:42 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <5627C2A9.1090100@oracle.com> Message-ID: <33180032.243.1445448521924.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Just one proposed change, the title should read "ICG HAS COMPLETED ITS WORK, AND AWAITS CONCLUSION OF ICANN-LEVEL ACCOUNTABILITY WORK IN ORDER TO SEND THE TRANSITION PROPOSAL". In its present form, the title is ambiguous ("awaits for conclusion..."). Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "joseph alhadeff" À: "Jari Arkko" , "Daniel Karrenberg" Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Mercredi 21 Octobre 2015 17:51:53 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer Who do we wish to thanks for the feedback? - Something is missing? The ICG would like to thank for the feedback, On 10/21/2015 9:36 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > I liked the phrasing of the first page document disclaimer, but I found the announcement a bit hard to read. Could we use similar text for both? > > Also, > >>> We may wish to highlight some of the changes that got me as a result of comments? > +1 > > Here’s one approach for the status announcement: > > ICG Completes Its Work and Awaits for Conclusion of iCANN-level Accountability Work > > The ICG concluded its work on the feedback received during the public review period for the IANA transition proposal. The ICG would like to thank for the feedback, which has been taken into account in a new version of the transition proposal (ref). Among other things, matters relating to handling of … have been clarified in this version. > > The full IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal is not complete due to a dependency on the naming portion. The numbers and protocol parameters portions of the proposal are complete, however, and have no dependencies on the work of the CCWG or any other remaining process. Indeed, implementation of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals has already been underway for months and can continue without waiting for the CCWG to complete its work. > > The naming part has been completed with one exception: confirmation from the CWG that its requirements related to ICANN-level accountability mechanisms have been met. These mechanisms are currently under development in the CCWG. Once the CWG has confirmed that its requirements have been met, the ICG will send the transition proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA. > > Jari > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jari.arkko at piuha.net Wed Oct 21 17:36:10 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:36:10 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <33180032.243.1445448521924.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <33180032.243.1445448521924.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <0FDEC849-A02B-4569-B8FB-B6093BD9A388@piuha.net> On 21 Oct 2015, at 18:28, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Just one proposed change, the title should read > > "ICG HAS COMPLETED ITS WORK, AND AWAITS CONCLUSION OF ICANN-LEVEL ACCOUNTABILITY WORK IN ORDER TO SEND THE TRANSITION PROPOSAL”. Yes, but lets not forget my earlier correction. We’ve completed the review of public comments… "ICG HAS COMPLETED PUBLIC REVIEW PHASE, AND AWAITS CONCLUSION OF ICANN-LEVEL ACCOUNTABILITY WORK IN ORDER TO SEND THE TRANSITION PROPOSAL FORWARD”. getting long… anyway, what I wanted is to signal that we’ve completed the review of public comments *and* that we are awaiting for something. not only that we’re awaiting something. Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Wed Oct 21 17:38:26 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:38:26 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <0FDEC849-A02B-4569-B8FB-B6093BD9A388@piuha.net> Message-ID: <2130752.255.1445449102449.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Jari, - sorry, had not seen your proposed change to the title, before sending mine; - I agree with your proposal, which mentions PUBLIC REVIEW PHASE. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jari Arkko" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: "joseph alhadeff" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" , "Daniel Karrenberg" Envoyé: Mercredi 21 Octobre 2015 18:36:10 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer On 21 Oct 2015, at 18:28, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Just one proposed change, the title should read > > "ICG HAS COMPLETED ITS WORK, AND AWAITS CONCLUSION OF ICANN-LEVEL ACCOUNTABILITY WORK IN ORDER TO SEND THE TRANSITION PROPOSAL”. Yes, but lets not forget my earlier correction. We’ve completed the review of public comments… "ICG HAS COMPLETED PUBLIC REVIEW PHASE, AND AWAITS CONCLUSION OF ICANN-LEVEL ACCOUNTABILITY WORK IN ORDER TO SEND THE TRANSITION PROPOSAL FORWARD”. getting long… anyway, what I wanted is to signal that we’ve completed the review of public comments *and* that we are awaiting for something. not only that we’re awaiting something. Jari From jari.arkko at piuha.net Wed Oct 21 17:39:35 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:39:35 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <2130752.255.1445449102449.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <2130752.255.1445449102449.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <80D8CF29-FFA4-4CC4-9AE6-FBA24DE24A16@piuha.net> > - sorry, had not seen your proposed change to the title, before sending mine; > no worries. thanks for your edits Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Oct 21 18:44:18 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:44:18 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. In-Reply-To: <6991815.203.1445277366700.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> References: <6991815.203.1445277366700.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2.lan> Message-ID: Great work Manal, Joe, all, My review is attached and in dropbox. Best, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Comment Summary - 15Oct15-with-chart-JJS LSA.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 171211 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" wrote: > Thank you Jennifer! > JJ. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Jennifer Chung" > À: "Jean-Jacques' 'Subrenat" > Cc: "Joseph Alhadeff" , internal-cg at ianacg.org, manal at tra.gov.eg > Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 18:36:55 > Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. > > Dear Jean-Jacques and all, > > As requested, attached and linked below, please find a version of the summary document with Jean-Jacques' tracked changes. > > Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1MzoPYB > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:12 PM > To: Jennifer Chung > Cc: Joseph Alhadeff ; internal-cg at ianacg.org; manal at tra.gov.eg > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. > > Dear All, > > because of some technical problem, currently I cannot do corrections on the proposed text in Dropbox. > I would therefore kindly request Secretariat to transfer my proposed corrections (enclosed) to the right location in Dropbox. Thank you. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Jennifer Chung" > À: "Joseph Alhadeff" , internal-cg at ianacg.org, manal at tra.gov.eg > Envoyé: Lundi 19 Octobre 2015 15:47:36 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. > > Dear All, > > Please find the summary document circulated by Manal and Joe previously. > Fig. 2 has been updated to the version as used during the ICG Engagement Session slide deck this morning. > > Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1GmrR5Q > > 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 Joseph Alhadeff > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 3:56 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org; manal at tra.gov.eg > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report .. > > A slight edit to Manal's email, the document was compiled by her with some help from me. Thanks for all of your work! > > Joe > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] > Received: Thursday, 15 Oct 2015, 5:27PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] > CC: joseph alhadeff (joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com) [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; Alissa Cooper (alissa at cooperw.in) [alissa at cooperw.in] > Subject: Public Comment Summary Report .. > > Dear All .. > > With sincere apologies for the delay, please find attached the Public Comment Summary Report, compiled by Joe and myself, as agreed during our face-to-face meeting in LA .. It is basically comprised of text drafted by colleagues who volunteered (or were volunteered :)), and agreed on the mailing list by ICG members .. > > Kindly note that: > > - All sources, to our best, are included in green italics between > square brackets .. > > - There are still highlights in yellow and comments where we were > not sure, but thought to move the discussion to the list .. > > - Suggested edits to the agreed text are marked in track changes .. > > - Where there are 2 slightly different versions of the same text, > both are included for us to decide .. > > Looking forward to our discussions in Dublin .. > Safe travels to everyone .. > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > PS: Joe and I worked on different versions and I'm attaching a merge, so all edits appear to come from me .. Yet I tried to mark Joe's comments as received .. Joe, please feel free to flag any inaccuracies .. > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mundy at tislabs.com Thu Oct 22 00:26:56 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 01:26:56 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> Message-ID: I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t have any further changes to suggest. In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. I’ve placed a version titled: IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. RussM On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Signed PGP part > I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor > edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o > n. > > https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ > ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx > > I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG > Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive > summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we > deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: > > X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all > parties to implement it. > > X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for > submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its > requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. > > > Daniel > > On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: > > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a > > bit. > > > > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. > > > > paf > > > > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: > >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 > .docx?dl=0 > >> > >> > 5.docx?dl=0> > >> > >> > >> > Edits made: > >> > >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except > >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all > >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by > >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per > >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct > >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item > >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) > >> > >> Alissa > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg > >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg > >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1004975 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From elise.gerich at icann.org Thu Oct 22 05:23:29 2015 From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 05:23:29 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> Message-ID: In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ¹ email states: > ³Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and related > resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA > functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally transferred > to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming > functions." Did I miss something in the protocol parameters¹ and numbers¹ communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what is specified in the two individual proposals? -- Elise From: Internal-cg on behalf of Russ Mundy Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" Cc: Russ Mundy Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > I¹ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new > History of IANA section (para¹s 02-06). > > I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don¹t have any > further changes to suggest. > > In the History section, I¹ve made several readability changes in paragraphs 04 > & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with the changes, I¹m > not wedded to these words so they can be further improved or reverted if the > group would prefers. > > I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think I¹ve > corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one being > replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was awarded 2 Jul > 2012 - I think that adding ³a subsequent² to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. > > I¹ve placed a version titled: > IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. > > RussM > > On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg > wrote: > >> Signed PGP part >> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o >> n. >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >> >> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >> >> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >> parties to implement it. >> >> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >> >> >> Daniel >> >> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>> > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>> > bit. >>> > >>> > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>> > >>> > paf >>> > >>> > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> > >>>> >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >> .docx?dl=0 >>>> >> >>>> >> >> > 5.docx?dl=0> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> Edits made: >>>> >> >>>> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>> >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>> >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>> >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>> >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>> >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>> >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>> >> >>>> >> Alissa >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5037 bytes Desc: not available URL: From paf at frobbit.se Thu Oct 22 05:34:36 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:34:36 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> Message-ID: <68500B71-1C06-495F-B250-63FD6E3BEB25@frobbit.se> Being the originator of that text in 02-06, I am ok with all proposed changes by Daniel and Russ (i.e. so far). Patrik On 22 Oct 2015, at 1:26, Russ Mundy wrote: > I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). > > I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t have any further changes to suggest. > > In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. > > I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. > > I’ve placed a version titled: IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. > > RussM > > On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > >> Signed PGP part >> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o >> n. >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >> >> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >> >> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >> parties to implement it. >> >> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >> >> >> Daniel >> >> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>> bit. >>> >>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>> >>> paf >>> >>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >> .docx?dl=0 >>>> >>>> >> > 5.docx?dl=0> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> Edits made: >>>> >>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 22 06:16:57 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:16:57 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> Message-ID: Hi Elise, We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were submitted before the PTI concept was invented. Alissa > On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich wrote: > > In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email states: > >> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming functions." > > Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. > > Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what is specified in the two individual proposals? > > -- Elise > > > From: Internal-cg > on behalf of Russ Mundy > > Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM > To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " > > Cc: Russ Mundy > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > >> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >> >> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t have any further changes to suggest. >> >> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >> >> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >> >> I’ve placed a version titled: IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >> >> RussM >> >> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg > wrote: >> >>> Signed PGP part >>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o >>> n. >>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>> parties to implement it. >>> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>> Daniel >>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>> > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>> > bit. >>> > >>> > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>> > >>> > paf >>> > >>> > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> > >>> >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>> .docx?dl=0 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Edits made: >>> >> >>> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>> >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>> >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>> >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>> >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>> >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>> >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>> >> >>> >> Alissa >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 06:34:50 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:34:50 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> Message-ID: <1CF2F3EB-FA4B-464D-8B9F-965B42E4E346@gmail.com> Alissa and all, ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only the SLA details need to discuss) since then. Kuo Wu > Alissa Cooper 於 2015年10月22日 14:16 寫道： > > Hi Elise, > > We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were submitted before the PTI concept was invented. > > Alissa > >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich > wrote: >> >> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email states: >> >>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming functions." >> >> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >> >> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what is specified in the two individual proposals? >> >> -- Elise >> >> >> From: Internal-cg > on behalf of Russ Mundy > >> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " > >> Cc: Russ Mundy > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >> >>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>> >>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t have any further changes to suggest. >>> >>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>> >>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>> >>> I’ve placed a version titled: IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>> >>> RussM >>> >>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg > wrote: >>> >>>> Signed PGP part >>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o >>>> n. >>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>> parties to implement it. >>>> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>> Daniel >>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>> > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>> > bit. >>>> > >>>> > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>> > >>>> > paf >>>> > >>>> > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Edits made: >>>> >> >>>> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>> >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>> >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>> >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>> >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>> >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>> >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>> >> >>>> >> Alissa >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 22 06:54:14 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:54:14 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56288816.2060906@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Russ' changes improve the text in 02-06 even further and I agree with them. With this text we make it very clear what we are building on. Thanks to all! Daniel On 22.10.15 2:26 , Russ Mundy wrote: > I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) > new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). > > I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t > have any further changes to suggest. > > In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in > paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others > disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they > can be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. > > I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I > think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 > is not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the > contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a > subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. > > I’ve placed a version titled: > IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. > > RussM > > On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg > wrote: > >> Signed PGP part I have read the executive summary carefully and >> suggest two minor edits dropping text. If they are not easily >> agreed, drop them and move o n. >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?pr evi >> >> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >> >> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the >> executive summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I >> believe we deserve better than we have now and suggest we say >> just this: >> >> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >> all parties to implement it. >> >> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >> >> >> Daniel >> >> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language >>> a bit. >>> >>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>> >>> paf >>> >>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal- v5 >> >>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>> >>>> >> > >> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> Edits made: >>>> >>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary >>>> (except the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned >>>> all references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started >>>> by Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 >>>> (per Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing > list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWKIgWAAoJENDY5Emqa716QFYQAKvoo9la/2p4+ZhRHSXwsaQu qrQshcm6rLzODLfH/6FxwGrtxP6WLUE1TKx/kYwL4MBJvU+c+Ov/g8J/v/NcIjsm mZqcBFaX5InSqCBOA1j3wNaWTStjdReIyiSPslOWp+MEJXgMfJSBFNKivHvUkly6 sBO0wFxfqx+YDV0JYR/fsKocWwvnWjK0nkXt73Tft4p5O5FY4E9a4tUKgza+hn+D ultZ1qJB2HbNctpqxgyiqKnKJWdOMtDxAtts1McbGoeCRGoyMRYPSZbcu5ZBU3ST 9F3xYP2sMFIiUWZhHJMVqy4tg+T7MmDiqhbyalAzvbScT8VMuDPEabcNOaAeDFYC 91/UCavhsPjC+nr7OHZKy+hJBfO6tM8a2jejHU6cqTdL9PKGzSf5OdOyw5o7eira CLLDduDlesHsDG2LBizhK49GU6Yun55nrMKikE8fzlfpKjd0FpPPOZeau53xoZUz GH4jPnRt5QdW/StYmEY/IhJBZcs4uD9cM/Joz1QN6M7jADTQSx+YXf0qQNRJun/+ QszHPiPDsfFgzpOja/ymDRhRUr9ATB4Y9Exxwkr3LSKcrZ/MbrSiTnN/sCCGrDOA KgKbu7DePSb/GCFieUn87zJ7vHYqu7oHBv9b2FeCQ8tgsYhLbcYlhQeGl+Y1mTHf HX/2CQQshClHIzPdJw76 =+g65 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 22 07:02:06 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:02:06 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <1CF2F3EB-FA4B-464D-8B9F-965B42E4E346@gmail.com> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <1CF2F3EB-FA4B-464D-8B9F-965B42E4E346@gmail.com> Message-ID: <562889EE.80907@ripe.net> Kuo, personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. My personal thoughts Daniel On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: > Alissa and all, > > ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final > proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs > contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major > concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and > CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only the > SLA details need to discuss) since then. > > Kuo Wu > >> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >> >> Hi Elise, >> >> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >> > wrote: >>> >>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>> states: >>> >>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>> >>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>> >>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>> >>> -- Elise >>> >>> >>> From: Internal-cg >> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>> > >>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>> > >>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>> >>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>> >>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>> >>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>> >>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>> >>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>> >>>> RussM >>>> >>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>> move o >>>>> n. >>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>> Daniel >>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>> > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>> > bit. >>>>> > >>>>> > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>> > >>>>> > paf >>>>> > >>>>> > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Edits made: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>> >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>> >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>> >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>> >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>> >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>> >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Alissa >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 07:05:25 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:05:25 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <562889EE.80907@ripe.net> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <1CF2F3EB-FA4B-464D-8B9F-965B42E4E346@gmail.com> <562889EE.80907@ripe.net> Message-ID: <59A094AE-D40C-49F7-A544-1922131B2E8F@gmail.com> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting for CWG confirmation. Kuo Wu > Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 15:02 寫道： > > Kuo, > > personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG > proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before > we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN > board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is > transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by > ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. > > My personal thoughts > > Daniel > > On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >> Alissa and all, >> >> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only the >> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >> >> Kuo Wu >> >>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>> >>> Hi Elise, >>> >>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>> states: >>>> >>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>> >>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>> >>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>> >>>> -- Elise >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Internal-cg >>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>> > >>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>> > >>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>> >>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>> >>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>> >>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>> >>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>> >>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>> >>>>> RussM >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>> move o >>>>>> n. >>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>> Daniel >>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> paf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> From epusp75 at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 07:11:22 2015 From: epusp75 at gmail.com (demi getschko) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:11:22 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] ISOC CEO statement on the transition In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEDCA5@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEDCA5@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: Yes... I also think we're almost there! Best wishes demi On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > FYI > > > > We're Almost There... IANA Stewardship Transition > > 20 October 2015 > > MS. KATHRYN BROWN > > President/CEO > > > > Since Friday, I have been listening to and, yes, talking to many in Dublin > who are engaged in the multistakeholder effort to transition the IANA > functions . > > Our goal is an orderly transition that both reaffirms the strength of the > global multistakeholder model while protecting and preserving the > coordinated, well-functioning administration of the unique identifiers that > are the core of the technical genius of the Internet. > > There is a sense of momentum here in Dublin that feels like we are in > reach of success as a Community. > > The IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has a strong draft proposal on how to > replace the role of the NTIA in a way that ensures the continued stability > and security of the IANA functions. The co-chair has indicated that she > intends to wrap up discussions on Friday. > > As for accountability, it is always the case that the last bits of any > agreement are the hardest--that's why they are the last. The result of the > CCWG’s work on Friday and Saturday seems like a breakthrough. The CCWG’s > "escalation" slide[1] > > was clear --at least to me--in laying out a coherent and effective way > forward no matter which model is ultimately chosen. It appears that the > "dependencies" between the ICG and CCWG proposals (raised in our Comments > > and elsewhere) are on their way to being solved. > > Moreover, and importantly, in the emerging proposal the community is > empowered to ensure ICANN’s accountability to its stakeholders. This > engagement-escalation-enforcement approach provides multiple opportunities > for the community, the ICANN Board, and the ICANN staff to work together to > resolve disputes via community consensus rather than turning > immediately--or at all--to the courts. We think this is a very constructive > approach that keeps power in the multistakeholder community where it > belongs. > > These refinements to strengthen accountability, to map out a path forward > for the stable and secure operations of IANA, and to empower the ICANN > community to exercise appropriate oversight over ICANN are most > encouraging. Rough consensus has been the motto of the Internet for decades > and we think we are moving towards that this week. > > There comes a moment to grab consensus knowing that the community has done > the hard work of satisfying the fundamentals of its Charter --meeting the > criteria for success that has been set forth, not just by NTIA, but by and > for itself. The ICG has proposed a plan that incorporates the solid > recommendations of the operational communities and the CCWG is on the verge > of doing the same for ICANN community empowerment in the new role that will > be entrusted to ICANN at the conclusion of the transition. ISOC is, > frankly, in awe of the work that has been done. > > We believe getting the last bits resolved is possible -- and probable -- > before this week ends. > > > > > > > > From: > http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/10/were-almost-there-iana-stewardship-transition > > > > -- > > > > > > Narelle Clark > Director of Operations - Deputy CEO > *Australian Communications * > > *Consumer Action Network* > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elise.gerich at icann.org Thu Oct 22 07:11:22 2015 From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:11:22 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> Message-ID: Alissa, Thanks for pointing out the confirmations from the other two communities. Given those confirmations, is there a reason that this is stated as a requirement of the three proposals in the Executive Summary instead of brought up in the ³Compatibility and interoperability² section with some language such as has been drafted to describe the compatibility of the IPR issue which was also proposed explicitly by a single Operational Community? Thanks, -- Elise From: Alissa Cooper Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:16 AM To: Elise Gerich Cc: Russ Mundy , "internal-cg at ianacg.org" Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > Hi Elise, > > We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that this > approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and elsewhere. It isn¹t > documented in the OC proposals because they were submitted before the PTI > concept was invented. > > Alissa > >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich wrote: >> >> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ¹ email states: >> >>> ³Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and related >>> resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA >>> functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally >>> transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance >>> of the naming functions." >> >> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters¹ and numbers¹ communities >> proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as the summary in >> paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities proposed that the >> administrative staff, etc. would be legally transferred to PTI. I agree this >> is a pragmatic implementation approach, it is just that I do not see that >> approach documented in the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >> >> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what is >> specified in the two individual proposals? >> >> -- Elise >> >> >> From: Internal-cg on behalf of Russ Mundy >> >> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" >> Cc: Russ Mundy >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >> >>> I¹ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new >>> History of IANA section (para¹s 02-06). >>> >>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don¹t have any >>> further changes to suggest. >>> >>> In the History section, I¹ve made several readability changes in paragraphs >>> 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with the changes, >>> I¹m not wedded to these words so they can be further improved or reverted if >>> the group would prefers. >>> >>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think I¹ve >>> corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one being >>> replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was awarded 2 >>> Jul 2012 - I think that adding ³a subsequent² to line 9 of 04 corrects the >>> error. >>> >>> I¹ve placed a version titled: >>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>> >>> RussM >>> >>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Signed PGP part >>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o >>>> n. >>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>> parties to implement it. >>>> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>> Daniel >>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>> > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>> > bit. >>>>> > >>>>> > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>> > >>>>> > paf >>>>> > >>>>> > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>> >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> Edits made: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>> >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>> >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>> >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>> >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>> >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>> >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Alissa >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5037 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 22 07:18:43 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56288DD3.6080001@ripe.net> Elise, the executive summary should summarise what is proposed to occur as a result of the transition. So this language is good and should stay. Daniel On 22.10.15 9:11 , Elise Gerich wrote: > Alissa, > Thanks for pointing out the confirmations from the other two > communities. Given those confirmations, is there a reason that this is > stated as a requirement of the three proposals in the Executive Summary > instead of brought up in the “Compatibility and interoperability” > section with some language such as has been drafted to describe the > compatibility of the IPR issue which was also proposed explicitly by a > single Operational Community? > > Thanks, > -- Elise > > > From: Alissa Cooper > > Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:16 AM > To: Elise Gerich > > Cc: Russ Mundy >, > "internal-cg at ianacg.org " > > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > > Hi Elise, > > We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities > that this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and > elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were > submitted before the PTI concept was invented. > > Alissa > >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich > > wrote: >> >> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ >> email states: >> >>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff >>> and related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated >>> with all of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA >>> contract would be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would >>> contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming functions." >> >> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well >> as the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those >> communities proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be >> legally transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic >> implementation approach, it is just that I do not see that >> approach documented in the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >> >> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than >> what is specified in the two individual proposals? >> >> -- Elise >> >> >> From: Internal-cg > > on behalf of Russ Mundy >> > >> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >> > >> Cc: Russ Mundy > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >> >>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the >>> (relatively) new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>> >>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and >>> don’t have any further changes to suggest. >>> >>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they >>> can be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>> >>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 >>> is not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is >>> the contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>> >>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>> >>> RussM >>> >>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Signed PGP part >>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them >>>> and move o >>>> n. >>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>> parties to implement it. >>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>> Daniel >>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>> > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>> > bit. >>>> > >>>> > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>> > >>>> > paf >>>> > >>>> > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Edits made: >>>> >> >>>> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>> >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>> >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>> >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>> >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>> >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>> >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>> >> >>>> >> Alissa >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 22 07:21:40 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:21:40 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> Message-ID: <9888E866-DAEE-457A-B09D-E18A733A49A4@cooperw.in> Hi Elise, The text in the executive summary is the same as the text in Part 0, Section IV.B, where we describe the PTI. I don’t think we need to repeat it twice in Part 0. Thanks, Alissa > On Oct 22, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Elise Gerich wrote: > > Alissa, > Thanks for pointing out the confirmations from the other two communities. Given those confirmations, is there a reason that this is stated as a requirement of the three proposals in the Executive Summary instead of brought up in the “Compatibility and interoperability” section with some language such as has been drafted to describe the compatibility of the IPR issue which was also proposed explicitly by a single Operational Community? > > Thanks, > -- Elise > > > From: Alissa Cooper > > Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:16 AM > To: Elise Gerich > > Cc: Russ Mundy >, "internal-cg at ianacg.org " > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > >> Hi Elise, >> >> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich > wrote: >>> >>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email states: >>> >>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming functions." >>> >>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>> >>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what is specified in the two individual proposals? >>> >>> -- Elise >>> >>> >>> From: Internal-cg > on behalf of Russ Mundy > >>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " > >>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>> >>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>> >>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t have any further changes to suggest. >>>> >>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>> >>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>> >>>> I’ve placed a version titled: IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>> >>>> RussM >>>> >>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o >>>>> n. >>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>> Daniel >>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>> > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>> > bit. >>>>> > >>>>> > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>> > >>>>> > paf >>>>> > >>>>> > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Edits made: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>> >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>> >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>> >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>> >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>> >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>> >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Alissa >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elise.gerich at icann.org Thu Oct 22 07:27:52 2015 From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:27:52 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <9888E866-DAEE-457A-B09D-E18A733A49A4@cooperw.in> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <9888E866-DAEE-457A-B09D-E18A733A49A4@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Hi, I was not proposing to duplicate information in Part 0, but suggesting to delete the information from Part 0 and only state the info in the section about compatibility and interoperability . Of course, I was also suggesting that we revise the text itself and Daniel has responded he supports having the text as is in the Exec Summary. Thanks, -- Elise From: Alissa Cooper Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:21 AM To: Elise Gerich Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > Hi Elise, > > The text in the executive summary is the same as the text in Part 0, Section > IV.B, where we describe the PTI. I don¹t think we need to repeat it twice in > Part 0. > > Thanks, > Alissa > >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Elise Gerich wrote: >> >> Alissa, >> Thanks for pointing out the confirmations from the other two communities. >> Given those confirmations, is there a reason that this is stated as a >> requirement of the three proposals in the Executive Summary instead of >> brought up in the ³Compatibility and interoperability² section with some >> language such as has been drafted to describe the compatibility of the IPR >> issue which was also proposed explicitly by a single Operational Community? >> >> Thanks, >> -- Elise >> >> >> From: Alissa Cooper >> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:16 AM >> To: Elise Gerich >> Cc: Russ Mundy , "internal-cg at ianacg.org" >> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >> >>> Hi Elise, >>> >>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that this >>> approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and elsewhere. It >>> isn¹t documented in the OC proposals because they were submitted before the >>> PTI concept was invented. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich wrote: >>>> >>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ¹ email >>>> states: >>>> >>>>> ³Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of >>>>> the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally >>>>> transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance >>>>> of the naming functions." >>>> >>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters¹ and numbers¹ communities >>>> proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as the summary in >>>> paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities proposed that the >>>> administrative staff, etc. would be legally transferred to PTI. I agree >>>> this is a pragmatic implementation approach, it is just that I do not see >>>> that approach documented in the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>> >>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what is >>>> specified in the two individual proposals? >>>> >>>> -- Elise >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Internal-cg on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>> >>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" >>>> Cc: Russ Mundy >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>> >>>>> I¹ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new >>>>> History of IANA section (para¹s 02-06). >>>>> >>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don¹t have >>>>> any further changes to suggest. >>>>> >>>>> In the History section, I¹ve made several readability changes in >>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with >>>>> the changes, I¹m not wedded to these words so they can be further improved >>>>> or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>> >>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think >>>>> I¹ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one >>>>> being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was >>>>> awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding ³a subsequent² to line 9 of 04 >>>>> corrects the error. >>>>> >>>>> I¹ve placed a version titled: >>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>> >>>>> RussM >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o >>>>>> n. >>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>> Daniel >>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>> > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>> > bit. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > paf >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>> >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>> >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>> >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>> >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>> >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>> >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Alissa >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5037 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 22 07:39:23 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:39:23 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal In-Reply-To: <89518C8C-F1B2-42E9-8EA0-5234CDDF00C6@cooperw.in> References: <33c6mgm1hkj91x0a68c1y1lo.1445245792238@email.android.com> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEDCE6@ACCAN01.accan.local> <2A6D528B-A795-4768-81E5-662DC0CB41C9@apnic.net> <89518C8C-F1B2-42E9-8EA0-5234CDDF00C6@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <562892AB.5060209@ripe.net> Very sensible and appropriate. On 21.10.15 17:57 , Alissa Cooper wrote: > How about if we add a footnote to paragraph 62 (where there is already > text about in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa) as follows: > > See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3172 and > https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2000/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ > for more information about .ARPA. > > >> On Oct 21, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Paul Wilson > > wrote: >> >> I’m also not fussed about this; was merely following up with Narelle >> to action some suggestions that we both made in that teleconf meeting. >> >> From my previous search, I couldn’t see these specific references >> included anywhere in the transition plan - so again it seemed >> worthwhile to add them somewhere. >> >> Paul. >> >> >> On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:34, Narelle Clark wrote: >> >>> The paragraphs you refer to cover a lot of detail. The part we were >>> suggesting runs to the scope of the overall proposal generation, and >>> therefore has a good home in part 0. >>> >>> I’m not fussed either way. Particularly given there are other tlds or >>> matters that could be similarly described. >>> >>> >>> Narelle >>> >>> >>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 12:53 AM >>> To: Narelle Clark >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal >>> >>> Hi Narelle, >>> >>> I’m unclear on why we would put this in part 0. These points are >>> already reflected in paragraphs 2018, 2033, and 3047 of the proposal. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Narelle Clark >>> >> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Proposed Text: >>> >>> The additional domains under .arpa, such as “in-addr.arpa” and >>> “ip6.arpa”, do not occur in the root zone. The provision of these >>> services are solely under the purview of the IAB as the authority of >>> the .ARPA registry and therefore not included in the transition as >>> existing systems will continue to apply. >>> >>> Include references: >>> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2000/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ >>> RFC 3172 defines the Management >>> Guidelines & Operational Requirements for .ARPA. >>> >>> -----8 <---------8 <------------- >>> >>> I had suggested this go into the section 'Workability' because it >>> should go with the piece on the RZM. >>> >>> I now think that both of those paragraphs should go in under the >>> heading 'Completeness and Clarity' at the end. These are parts that >>> are not addressed in the combined proposal and everyone is happy that >>> they aren't. >>> >>> Both seem more relevant there. >>> >>> >>> Narelle >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC >> dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 22 07:49:19 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:49:19 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <9888E866-DAEE-457A-B09D-E18A733A49A4@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <067E51F5-A191-4FF7-940F-F78EE27D5988@cooperw.in> Hi Elise, > On Oct 22, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Elise Gerich wrote: > > Hi, > I was not proposing to duplicate information in Part 0, but suggesting to delete the information from Part 0 and only state the info in the section about compatibility and interoperability . Hmm, I’m confused now. I don’t know how we can remove text from Part 0 but add it to the section on compatibility and interoperability, which is in Part 0. Is your suggestion to delete paragraph 24 (in Part 0, Section IV.B, “Post-Transition IANA”) and add text to Part 0, Section VI.C.1 (“Compatibility and Interoperability”)? If so, what would then go in Part 0, Section IV.B, which we agreed to add in Los Angeles given the need to clearly explain the nature of the PTI? I guess what I’m not understanding is, if we agreed to add an explicit section about the PTI, why we would move the core text explaining the PTI to a different section. Thanks, Alissa > Of course, I was also suggesting that we revise the text itself and Daniel has responded he supports having the text as is in the Exec Summary. > Thanks, > -- Elise > > > From: Alissa Cooper > > Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:21 AM > To: Elise Gerich > > Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > >> Hi Elise, >> >> The text in the executive summary is the same as the text in Part 0, Section IV.B, where we describe the PTI. I don’t think we need to repeat it twice in Part 0. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Elise Gerich > wrote: >>> >>> Alissa, >>> Thanks for pointing out the confirmations from the other two communities. Given those confirmations, is there a reason that this is stated as a requirement of the three proposals in the Executive Summary instead of brought up in the “Compatibility and interoperability” section with some language such as has been drafted to describe the compatibility of the IPR issue which was also proposed explicitly by a single Operational Community? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -- Elise >>> >>> >>> From: Alissa Cooper > >>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:16 AM >>> To: Elise Gerich > >>> Cc: Russ Mundy >, "internal-cg at ianacg.org " > >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>> >>>> Hi Elise, >>>> >>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email states: >>>>> >>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>> >>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>> >>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>> >>>>> -- Elise >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Internal-cg > on behalf of Russ Mundy > >>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " > >>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>> >>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>> >>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>> >>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>> >>>>>> RussM >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o >>>>>>> n. >>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>> > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>> > bit. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > paf >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>> >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>> >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>> >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>> >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>> >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>> >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Alissa >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 22 07:56:21 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:56:21 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> Message-ID: <630C3906-E015-4073-9C5B-5717E3F99FE4@cooperw.in> I’ve added the .arpa footnote in the attached and mirrored Daniel’s changes in the executive summary into Part 0.VI.E (v5-mundy-karrenberg-alc). Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6sex97onq9nlr8n/IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy-alc.docx?dl=0 Alissa > On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:26 AM, Russ Mundy wrote: > > I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). > > I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t have any further changes to suggest. > > In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. > > I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. > > I’ve placed a version titled: IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. > > RussM > > On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > >> Signed PGP part >> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o >> n. >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >> >> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >> >> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >> parties to implement it. >> >> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >> >> >> Daniel >> >> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>> bit. >>> >>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>> >>> paf >>> >>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >> .docx?dl=0 >>>> >>>> >> > 5.docx?dl=0> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> Edits made: >>>> >>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy-alc.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 991077 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Oct 22 08:02:37 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:02:37 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] meeting today In-Reply-To: <067E51F5-A191-4FF7-940F-F78EE27D5988@cooperw.in> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in><9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se><5627723E.5010707@ripe.net><9888E866-DAEE-457A-B09D-E18A733A49A4@cooperw.in> <067E51F5-A191-4FF7-940F-F78EE27D5988@cooperw.in> Message-ID: I apologize for not partizipating this morning’s session since going through a dentist treatment. See you later Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Oct 22 08:49:50 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 04:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <59A094AE-D40C-49F7-A544-1922131B2E8F@gmail.com> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <1CF2F3EB-FA4B-464D-8B9F-965B42E4E346@gmail.com> <562889EE.80907@ripe.net> <59A094AE-D40C-49F7-A544-1922131B2E8F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5628A32D.7040508@oracle.com> Kuo: In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in clarifying that our work is nearly done. Joe On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: > I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting for CWG confirmation. > > Kuo Wu > >> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 15:02 寫道： >> >> Kuo, >> >> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >> >> My personal thoughts >> >> Daniel >> >> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>> Alissa and all, >>> >>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only the >>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>> >>> Kuo Wu >>> >>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>> >>>> Hi Elise, >>>> >>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>> states: >>>>> >>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>> >>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>> >>>>> -- Elise >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>> > >>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>> > >>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>> >>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>> >>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>> >>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>> >>>>>> RussM >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>> move o >>>>>>> n. >>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 22 08:57:44 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:57:44 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <5628A32D.7040508@oracle.com> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <1CF2F3EB-FA4B-464D-8B9F-965B42E4E346@gmail.com> <562889EE.80907@ripe.net> <59A094AE-D40C-49F7-A544-1922131B2E8F@gmail.com> <5628A32D.7040508@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5628A508.7040809@ripe.net> Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: > Kuo: > > In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would > actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we > would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was > comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in > clarifying that our work is nearly done. > > Joe > > On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >> for CWG confirmation. >> >> Kuo Wu >> >>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>> 15:02 寫道： >>> >>> Kuo, >>> >>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>> >>> My personal thoughts >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>> Alissa and all, >>>> >>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>> the >>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>> >>>> Kuo Wu >>>> >>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>> >>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>> >>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>> >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>> states: >>>>>> >>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>> > >>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Oct 22 09:01:16 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 05:01:16 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <5628A508.7040809@ripe.net> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <1CF2F3EB-FA4B-464D-8B9F-965B42E4E346@gmail.com> <562889EE.80907@ripe.net> <59A094AE-D40C-49F7-A544-1922131B2E8F@gmail.com> <5628A32D.7040508@oracle.com> <5628A508.7040809@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5628A5DC.9070702@oracle.com> I defer to those more familiar with the Board process and dynamics... On 10/22/2015 4:57 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? > > On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >> Kuo: >> >> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would >> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we >> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was >> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in >> clarifying that our work is nearly done. >> >> Joe >> >> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >>> for CWG confirmation. >>> >>> Kuo Wu >>> >>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>>> 15:02 寫道： >>>> >>>> Kuo, >>>> >>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>> >>>> My personal thoughts >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>> >>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>>> the >>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>> >>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>> >>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alissa >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>> states: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 kuoweiwu at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 09:09:19 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:09:19 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <5628A32D.7040508@oracle.com> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <1CF2F3EB-FA4B-464D-8B9F-965B42E4E346@gmail.com> <562889EE.80907@ripe.net> <59A094AE-D40C-49F7-A544-1922131B2E8F@gmail.com> <5628A32D.7040508@oracle.com> Message-ID: <402B35EC-F64B-4F25-9761-57460CA62B2C@gmail.com> I can share some view in ICG meeting today and tomorrow if you like to know. But it is not yet for board position as you know. Kuo Wu > joseph alhadeff 於 2015年10月22日 16:49 寫道： > > Kuo: > > In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in clarifying that our work is nearly done. > > Joe > > On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting for CWG confirmation. >> >> Kuo Wu >> >>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 15:02 寫道： >>> >>> Kuo, >>> >>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>> >>> My personal thoughts >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>> Alissa and all, >>>> >>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only the >>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>> >>>> Kuo Wu >>>> >>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>> >>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>> >>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>> >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>> states: >>>>>> >>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>> > >>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 09:09:56 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:09:56 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <5628A508.7040809@ripe.net> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <1CF2F3EB-FA4B-464D-8B9F-965B42E4E346@gmail.com> <562889EE.80907@ripe.net> <59A094AE-D40C-49F7-A544-1922131B2E8F@gmail.com> <5628A32D.7040508@oracle.com> <5628A508.7040809@ripe.net> Message-ID: <93BAFC87-4862-4245-A2F7-842459D7BA3C@gmail.com> It is very welcome if ICG request. Kuo Wu > Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 16:57 寫道： > > Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? > > On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >> Kuo: >> >> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would >> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we >> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was >> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in >> clarifying that our work is nearly done. >> >> Joe >> >> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >>> for CWG confirmation. >>> >>> Kuo Wu >>> >>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>>> 15:02 寫道： >>>> >>>> Kuo, >>>> >>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>> >>>> My personal thoughts >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>> >>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>>> the >>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>> >>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>> >>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alissa >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>> states: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 elise.gerich at icann.org Thu Oct 22 09:19:13 2015 From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:19:13 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <067E51F5-A191-4FF7-940F-F78EE27D5988@cooperw.in> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <9888E866-DAEE-457A-B09D-E18A733A49A4@cooperw.in> <067E51F5-A191-4FF7-940F-F78EE27D5988@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Sorry, that my comments were unclear. Let me try again. In paragraph X009 in the Proposal Summary section, it states: > ³Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and related > resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA > functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally transferred > to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming > functions." My suggestion was to eliminate this text from the Proposal summary because similar to the IPR topic, the PTI topic is only mentioned in one of the OC proposals. None of the proposals explicitly indicate that all the functions are served by the PTI. The exact same text that is in paragraph X009 is in paragraph 14 of the section A. Operational Community Proposals, so it is unnecessary in the section about Proposal Summary. My suggestion was that it should be mentioned in the Compatibility and Interoperability section and be treated similar to the IPR issue in paragraph 58 of that same section. It is in that section (Compatibility and Interoperability) that we have noted requirements from one community that needs compatibility with the other two communities. Is that clearer? -- Elise From: Alissa Cooper Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:49 AM To: Elise Gerich Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > Hi Elise, > >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Elise Gerich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I was not proposing to duplicate information in Part 0, but suggesting to >> delete the information from Part 0 and only state the info in the section >> about compatibility and interoperability . > > Hmm, I¹m confused now. I don¹t know how we can remove text from Part 0 but add > it to the section on compatibility and interoperability, which is in Part 0. > > Is your suggestion to delete paragraph 24 (in Part 0, Section IV.B, > ³Post-Transition IANA²) and add text to Part 0, Section VI.C.1 (³Compatibility > and Interoperability²)? If so, what would then go in Part 0, Section IV.B, > which we agreed to add in Los Angeles given the need to clearly explain the > nature of the PTI? I guess what I¹m not understanding is, if we agreed to add > an explicit section about the PTI, why we would move the core text explaining > the PTI to a different section. > > Thanks, > Alissa > >> Of course, I was also suggesting that we revise the text itself and Daniel >> has responded he supports having the text as is in the Exec Summary. >> Thanks, >> -- Elise >> >> >> From: Alissa Cooper >> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:21 AM >> To: Elise Gerich >> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >> >>> Hi Elise, >>> >>> The text in the executive summary is the same as the text in Part 0, Section >>> IV.B, where we describe the PTI. I don¹t think we need to repeat it twice in >>> Part 0. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Elise Gerich wrote: >>>> >>>> Alissa, >>>> Thanks for pointing out the confirmations from the other two communities. >>>> Given those confirmations, is there a reason that this is stated as a >>>> requirement of the three proposals in the Executive Summary instead of >>>> brought up in the ³Compatibility and interoperability² section with some >>>> language such as has been drafted to describe the compatibility of the IPR >>>> issue which was also proposed explicitly by a single Operational Community? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -- Elise >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Alissa Cooper >>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:16 AM >>>> To: Elise Gerich >>>> Cc: Russ Mundy , "internal-cg at ianacg.org" >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>> >>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>> >>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and elsewhere. >>>>> It isn¹t documented in the OC proposals because they were submitted before >>>>> the PTI concept was invented. >>>>> >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ¹ email >>>>>> states: >>>>>> >>>>>>> ³Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of >>>>>>> the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be >>>>>>> legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the >>>>>>> performance of the naming functions." >>>>>> >>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters¹ and numbers¹ communities >>>>>> proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as the summary in >>>>>> paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities proposed that the >>>>>> administrative staff, etc. would be legally transferred to PTI. I agree >>>>>> this is a pragmatic implementation approach, it is just that I do not >>>>>> see that approach documented in the numbers and protocol parameters >>>>>> proposals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what is >>>>>> specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Internal-cg on behalf of Russ >>>>>> Mundy >>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" >>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>> >>>>>>> I¹ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new >>>>>>> History of IANA section (para¹s 02-06). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don¹t have >>>>>>> any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the History section, I¹ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree >>>>>>> with the changes, I¹m not wedded to these words so they can be further >>>>>>> improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think >>>>>>> I¹ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the >>>>>>> one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that >>>>>>> was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding ³a subsequent² to line 9 of >>>>>>> 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I¹ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o >>>>>>> n. >>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>> > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>> > bit. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > paf >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>> >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>> >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>> >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>> >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>> >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>> >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Alissa >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5037 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Thu Oct 22 09:26:12 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:26:12 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <5628A508.7040809@ripe.net> Message-ID: <17238732.218.1445505971971.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Daniel & All, we had clearly indicated that the ICANN Board could, like any other component of the global Internet community, make known its position through the Public Comment mechanism. So I don't think if would be appropriate to provide a special, additional mechanism for the Board. As was remarked several times in our meetings, we have two Liaisons, and that is the normal channel to the Board and to IANA, in the same way that each one of us communicates with her/his community. Several months ago, when we discussed how to send our Transition Proposal to the NTIA, and based on best international practices, I had proposed that the ICG Chair address the Proposal, with a letter, to the Administrator of the NTIA, c/o the Chair of the ICANN Board. A copy can be sent to the ICANN CEO. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 09:57:44 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: > Kuo: > > In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would > actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we > would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was > comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in > clarifying that our work is nearly done. > > Joe > > On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >> for CWG confirmation. >> >> Kuo Wu >> >>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>> 15:02 寫道： >>> >>> Kuo, >>> >>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>> >>> My personal thoughts >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>> Alissa and all, >>>> >>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>> the >>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>> >>>> Kuo Wu >>>> >>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>> >>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>> >>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>> >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>> states: >>>>>> >>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>> > >>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From pwilson at apnic.net Thu Oct 22 09:45:51 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:45:51 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal In-Reply-To: <562892AB.5060209@ripe.net> References: <33c6mgm1hkj91x0a68c1y1lo.1445245792238@email.android.com> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEDCE6@ACCAN01.accan.local> <2A6D528B-A795-4768-81E5-662DC0CB41C9@apnic.net> <89518C8C-F1B2-42E9-8EA0-5234CDDF00C6@cooperw.in> <562892AB.5060209@ripe.net> Message-ID: <16609C72-EBAE-4C6D-82CF-9212AA820CF8@apnic.net> Yes, fine I think. On 22 Oct 2015, at 17:39, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Very sensible and appropriate. > > On 21.10.15 17:57 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >> How about if we add a footnote to paragraph 62 (where there is >> already >> text about in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa) as follows: >> >> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3172 and >> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2000/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ >> for more information about .ARPA. >> >> >>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Paul Wilson >> > wrote: >>> >>> I’m also not fussed about this; was merely following up with >>> Narelle >>> to action some suggestions that we both made in that teleconf >>> meeting. >>> >>> From my previous search, I couldn’t see these specific references >>> included anywhere in the transition plan - so again it seemed >>> worthwhile to add them somewhere. >>> >>> Paul. >>> >>> >>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:34, Narelle Clark wrote: >>> >>>> The paragraphs you refer to cover a lot of detail. The part we were >>>> suggesting runs to the scope of the overall proposal generation, >>>> and >>>> therefore has a good home in part 0. >>>> >>>> I’m not fussed either way. Particularly given there are other >>>> tlds or >>>> matters that could be similarly described. >>>> >>>> >>>> Narelle >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 12:53 AM >>>> To: Narelle Clark >>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text on .arpa for combined proposal >>>> >>>> Hi Narelle, >>>> >>>> I’m unclear on why we would put this in part 0. These points are >>>> already reflected in paragraphs 2018, 2033, and 3047 of the >>>> proposal. >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Narelle Clark >>>> >>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Proposed Text: >>>> >>>> The additional domains under .arpa, such as “in-addr.arpa” and >>>> “ip6.arpa”, do not occur in the root zone. The provision of >>>> these >>>> services are solely under the purview of the IAB as the authority >>>> of >>>> the .ARPA registry and therefore not included in the transition as >>>> existing systems will continue to apply. >>>> >>>> Include references: >>>> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2000/iab-statement-on-infrastructure-domain-and-subdomains-may-2000/ >>>> RFC 3172 defines the >>>> Management >>>> Guidelines & Operational Requirements for .ARPA. >>>> >>>> -----8 <---------8 <------------- >>>> >>>> I had suggested this go into the section 'Workability' because it >>>> should go with the piece on the RZM. >>>> >>>> I now think that both of those paragraphs should go in under the >>>> heading 'Completeness and Clarity' at the end. These are parts that >>>> are not addressed in the combined proposal and everyone is happy >>>> that >>>> they aren't. >>>> >>>> Both seem more relevant there. >>>> >>>> >>>> Narelle >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC >>> dg at apnic.net >>> http://www.apnic.net >>> @apnicdg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 22 09:54:36 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:54:36 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <402B35EC-F64B-4F25-9761-57460CA62B2C@gmail.com> References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <1CF2F3EB-FA4B-464D-8B9F-965B42E4E346@gmail.com> <562889EE.80907@ripe.net> <59A094AE-D40C-49F7-A544-1922131B2E8F@gmail.com> <5628A32D.7040508@oracle.com> <402B35EC-F64B-4F25-9761-57460CA62B2C@gmail.com> Message-ID: Note that we received public comments from the Board, we took their feedback into account, and the proposal hasn’t really changed too much in light of the public comments. Alissa > On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: > > I can share some view in ICG meeting today and tomorrow if you like to know. But it is not yet for board position as you know. > > Kuo Wu > >> joseph alhadeff 於 2015年10月22日 16:49 寫道： >> >> Kuo: >> >> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in clarifying that our work is nearly done. >> >> Joe >> >> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting for CWG confirmation. >>> >>> Kuo Wu >>> >>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 15:02 寫道： >>>> >>>> Kuo, >>>> >>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>> >>>> My personal thoughts >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>> >>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only the >>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>> >>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>> >>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alissa >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>> states: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 22 10:02:24 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:02:24 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Day 3 and 4: remote participation link and agenda Message-ID: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, For your reference: ICG face-to-face sessions --Adobe Connect link: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeyb --Audio/Bridge Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ --Conference ID: 92957255 Thursday 22 October – 10:30-12:30 IST (Liffey B): https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/thu-icg Friday 23 October – 09:00-17:00 IST (Liffey B): https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/fri-icg Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-F2F-7-agenda-Day-3-and-4-v2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 184468 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk Thu Oct 22 10:16:22 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:16:22 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5 Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B804B4@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Correct Alissa: this is what I sent out a month ago on part of the PTI. -----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle Sent: 23 September 2015 11:55 To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: FW: action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5 Importance: High Not hearing back, I forward the mail I sent last night on PTI and separation for today's call. Proposed text is below -----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle Sent: 22 September 2015 21:32 To: 'Jari Arkko'; Milton L Mueller; Paul Wilson Subject: RE: action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5 Importance: High Yes, sorry guys, I only started to do this this morning on the train to and from a meeting in London. It's quite a big dossier... I've just focussed on the first page: D.1. I've bottled out on D.1.e. though, which is an RIR question. First job is to look at all the inputs. I am assuming the list on the slides is complete, but anyone aware of an omission? This was a pretty tedious and slow job! More interesting is to prepare our recommendations for ICG action: below for D.1. I attach a collation of the actual words of the comments and my basic assessment - the things that informed my proposed way forward. D. Separation processes (R. Dara-23, D. Huberman-29, PiRRC-51, NZ gov-56, USCIB-81, CENTR-83, ALAC-88, J. Panday-89, ICANN BC-92, PK-102, IA-103, A. Doria-104, F. Hopkinson-105, CDT-107, INTA-110, ICANN Board-121, IPC-125, CIS-126) 1. More clarity needed about escalation processes prior to separation, who will be involved in them, what standard should be for separation (29, 51, 81, 83, 88, 92, 102, 103, 105, 121) [Note: did not find the relevant comment in 51 or 105] * Proposed action: forward to OCs (not just CWG): A significant number of comments highlighted that they would wish to see more detail on the escalation processes prior to a change of IANA functions operator. Contributions included requests for defining a standard and criteria to determine whether separation should be considered, detail about the process to be followed, and escalation and issue resolution mechanisms. [For CWG: We recognise that the Names Proposal identifies mechanisms for issue resolution (the CSC) and an escalation path through the GNSO RySG and the ccNSO (which could also include resolution efforts) before invoking a special review. The concerns seem to be more linked to the action once the escalation has been initiated.] [For other OCs: We would welcome information about the escalation processes that would be used to appoint a new IANA functions operator.] If the [OC] agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for any additional information so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined transition proposal. One comment suggested that there might need to be an accelerated process in the (probably unlikely) case where there was a threat to security or stability. Another comment identified that part of the separation process should be to carry out a high-level risk assessment and that that should include the financial impacts of changing the operator. If the [OC] agrees with this suggestion and wishes to add to its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendments. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the Operational Communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, all three operational communities will need to agree to establish some form of cooperation: we would encourage you to discuss this with the other Operational Communities and if you agree to include this, please send us verbatim text to reflect an agreed amendment. [For CWG: One comment expressed concern over expanded GAC role in the Separation Working Group, noting that this significantly expands the GAC's mandate within ICANN. We would be grateful for your confirmation that the wider implications of this have been considered by CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability and that you are content to proceed on the basis outlined in the proposal.] ***NOTE: I have not tried to respond to "e. RIRs must establish a dispute resolution process (89) PTI and related bodies" Hope this helps Martin -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net] Sent: 22 September 2015 05:08 To: Martin Boyle; Milton L Mueller; Paul Wilson Subject: action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5 Just starting a thread on this. Tomorrow Tuesday I'll be able to do some work on this in the evening, but not before that. Not sure if you guys have already succeeded in sending something out; didn't see an e-mail yet. Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Separation Process comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 45856 bytes Desc: Separation Process comments.docx URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk Thu Oct 22 10:17:29 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:17:29 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: PTI related issues slide 5 Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B804CF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> This is the other PTI slide comment. From: Martin Boyle Sent: 23 September 2015 16:57 To: Milton L Mueller; Paul Wilson; 'Jari Arkko' Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: PTI related issues slide 5 Importance: High Milton, Paul, Jari, All, (No consultation on any of this yet: other sub-team members might have views divergent from mine, but given time constraints, I am copying this to the whole ICG list.) I've now gone through slide 5 (much easier than slide 4 :) ): I do not think we need to ask for CWG any further action on any of the points. I leave it to others to decide whether we draw the OCs' attention to D3 to assure that ICANN's Continuity and Contingency Plan is updated in the contract between ICANN and PTI. D2 * INTA (110): "INTA recommends a separation process that does not require final approval by the ICANN Board." While the CWG separation process does require approval by the ICANN Board, the ICG proposal paragraph 1399 specifies, "The selection of a new operator to perform the IANA Naming Functions ... will be subject to approval by the ICANN Board, and a community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process. A determination by the ICANN Board to not approve a recommendation by the SCWG ... will need to follow the same supermajority thresholds and consultation procedures ...." Hence the responsibility for dealing with the Board overriding a recommendation by the separation process is within the ICANN enhanced accountability processes. No further action is required. D3 * R Dara (23): "[The] "Continuity and Contingency Plan" developed by ICANN under clause C.7.3 of the present IANA Functions Contract ... operationalises separability and outlines how continuity will be ensured... The plan needs to be revised for how continuity will be ensured if IANA were to be split into three parts and only one community decides to move IANA. This should be picked up in the ICANN-PTI contract. Given that the numbers & protocol parameters communities have their own relationship with ICANN, I do not think anything needs to be done here, although I would expect that ICANN would want to cover a split in the IANA functions operation as part of its contingency plan. Further action: none necessary (it is an ICANN implementation issue), although we could say, "One comment notes that the current Continuity and Contingency Plan developed under the current IANA functions contract will need to be updated as part of the new contractual relationship between ICANN and the PTI. We would expect this to be dealt with under the contracting process, but we would welcome confirmation that this will be the case." D4: Covered under 1.c. D.5. * A Doria (104): "I do not support the possible separation of ... the IANA function, into separate ... subfunctions. I consider that a possible risk to the stability and security of the Internet. I see IANA, not any single directory, as the actual root of the Internet and am concerned about possible inconsistencies that might develop were IANA to be split..." The consensus proposal does not share the opinion that splitting the IANA functions by OC is a serious risk (although we have recognised the risk of inconsistencies with our response on 1.c. requesting the OCs to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator No further action is required. D.6. * Centre for Internet and Society (126): Recommends splitting the three IANA functions ("allows for technical specialisation leading to greater efficiency; allows for more direct accountability, and no concentration of power; and allows for ease of shifting of the ... IANA functions operator without affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function operators.") The proposal has been developed based on the requirements of the three OCs. It is based on a general consensus in each community process. While this might be a possible solution, it was not adopted. (It is likely it would have been opposed without a clear need, given the significant changes that this would introduce.) No further action is required. E. * GNSO IPC (125): "in one very important aspect, the IPC believes that the proposal does not support and certainly does not enhance the multistakeholder model. In the bodies created by the CWG ... representation from the GNSO stakeholder communities is set at the stakeholder group level. ... the IPC will, more likely than not, fail to be directly represented on those bodies." Representation on different bodies has to be a compromise that balances representation against the manageable size of different groups. Representation from the GNSO (in comparison with other communities) was discussed at length in the CWG for the SCWG and gTLD interests have a significantly larger representation than any other community (six seats on the SCWG and five on the IANA Function Review Teams, compared with three ccTLDs and one from other communities). Given the delicate balance in these structures, and a general consensus, it would be inappropriate to ask the CWG to re-open this discussion. No further action required. Happy to discuss in the next 30 minutes! Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 22 10:17:46 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:17:46 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <58324B89-887D-4315-AC91-5D0EB4CB4135@cooperw.in> <9D8C5BD8-1EB4-42B5-A579-16556BC58E22@frobbit.se> <5627723E.5010707@ripe.net> <9888E866-DAEE-457A-B09D-E18A733A49A4@cooperw.in> <067E51F5-A191-4FF7-940F-F78EE27D5988@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <36086803-CF0F-4A62-B2EE-0358A9DABDDA@cooperw.in> Hi Elise, > On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Elise Gerich wrote: > > Sorry, that my comments were unclear. Let me try again. Ok, I think I am understanding better now, thanks. > > In paragraph X009 in the Proposal Summary section, it states: >> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming functions." > > My suggestion was to eliminate this text from the Proposal summary because similar to the IPR topic, the PTI topic is only mentioned in one of the OC proposals. None of the proposals explicitly indicate that all the functions are served by the PTI. Well, the names proposal says the following in paragraph 1108 (and similarly in 1181): The existing IANA functions department, administrative staff, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. I don’t see why we would be vague about all the functions moving in the executive summary or Part 0 when we know that to be the case and the names proposal says as much (although it’s not entirely explicit). > > The exact same text that is in paragraph X009 is in paragraph 14 of the section A. Operational Community Proposals, so it is unnecessary in the section about Proposal Summary. The executive summary is intended to summarize the key points from the proposal. I think this point in particular is quite important to include in the executive summary. > My suggestion was that it should be mentioned in the Compatibility and Interoperability section and be treated similar to the IPR issue in paragraph 58 of that same section. It is in that section (Compatibility and Interoperability) that we have noted requirements from one community that needs compatibility with the other two communities. I still disagree. The text in para 14 is a direct quote from the names proposal and provides very important details. It is difficult to understand the names proposal without this, in my opinion. Alissa > > Is that clearer? > -- Elise > > > From: Alissa Cooper > > Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:49 AM > To: Elise Gerich > > Cc: ICG > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > >> Hi Elise, >> >>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Elise Gerich > wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> I was not proposing to duplicate information in Part 0, but suggesting to delete the information from Part 0 and only state the info in the section about compatibility and interoperability . >> >> Hmm, I’m confused now. I don’t know how we can remove text from Part 0 but add it to the section on compatibility and interoperability, which is in Part 0. >> >> Is your suggestion to delete paragraph 24 (in Part 0, Section IV.B, “Post-Transition IANA”) and add text to Part 0, Section VI.C.1 (“Compatibility and Interoperability”)? If so, what would then go in Part 0, Section IV.B, which we agreed to add in Los Angeles given the need to clearly explain the nature of the PTI? I guess what I’m not understanding is, if we agreed to add an explicit section about the PTI, why we would move the core text explaining the PTI to a different section. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >>> Of course, I was also suggesting that we revise the text itself and Daniel has responded he supports having the text as is in the Exec Summary. >>> Thanks, >>> -- Elise >>> >>> >>> From: Alissa Cooper > >>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:21 AM >>> To: Elise Gerich > >>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " > >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>> >>>> Hi Elise, >>>> >>>> The text in the executive summary is the same as the text in Part 0, Section IV.B, where we describe the PTI. I don’t think we need to repeat it twice in Part 0. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Elise Gerich > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Alissa, >>>>> Thanks for pointing out the confirmations from the other two communities. Given those confirmations, is there a reason that this is stated as a requirement of the three proposals in the Executive Summary instead of brought up in the “Compatibility and interoperability” section with some language such as has been drafted to describe the compatibility of the IPR issue which was also proposed explicitly by a single Operational Community? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> -- Elise >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Alissa Cooper > >>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:16 AM >>>>> To: Elise Gerich > >>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy >, "internal-cg at ianacg.org " > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alissa >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email states: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Internal-cg > on behalf of Russ Mundy > >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " > >>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o >>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>> X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all >>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>> X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>> > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>> > bit. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > paf >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>> >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>> >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>> >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>> >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>> >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>> >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Alissa >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>> >> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 22 10:19:42 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:19:42 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: PTI related issues slide 5 References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3CA19@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: Here is the slide 5 email from Martin. > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Martin Boyle > Subject: [Internal-cg] PTI related issues slide 5 > Date: September 23, 2015 at 4:57:27 PM GMT+1 > To: Milton L Mueller , Paul Wilson , "Jari Arkko" > Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" > > Milton, Paul, Jari, > All, > > (No consultation on any of this yet: other sub-team members might have views divergent from mine, but given time constraints, I am copying this to the whole ICG list.) > > I’ve now gone through slide 5 (much easier than slide 4 J ): I do not think we need to ask for CWG any further action on any of the points. I leave it to others to decide whether we draw the OCs’ attention to D3 to assure that ICANN’s Continuity and Contingency Plan is updated in the contract between ICANN and PTI. > > D2 > · INTA (110): “INTA recommends a separation process that does not require final approval by the ICANN Board.” > > While the CWG separation process does require approval by the ICANN Board, the ICG proposal paragraph 1399 specifies, “The selection of a new operator to perform the IANA Naming Functions … will be subject to approval by the ICANN Board, and a community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process. A determination by the ICANN Board to not approve a recommendation by the SCWG … will need to follow the same supermajority thresholds and consultation procedures ….” Hence the responsibility for dealing with the Board overriding a recommendation by the separation process is within the ICANN enhanced accountability processes. > > No further action is required. > > D3 > · R Dara (23): “[The] “Continuity and Contingency Plan” developed by ICANN under clause C.7.3 of the present IANA Functions Contract … operationalises separability and outlines how continuity will be ensured… The plan needs to be revised for how continuity will be ensured if IANA were to be split into three parts and only one community decides to move IANA. > > This should be picked up in the ICANN-PTI contract. Given that the numbers & protocol parameters communities have their own relationship with ICANN, I do not think anything needs to be done here, although I would expect that ICANN would want to cover a split in the IANA functions operation as part of its contingency plan. > > Further action: none necessary (it is an ICANN implementation issue), although we could say, “One comment notes that the current Continuity and Contingency Plan developed under the current IANA functions contract will need to be updated as part of the new contractual relationship between ICANN and the PTI. We would expect this to be dealt with under the contracting process, but we would welcome confirmation that this will be the case.” > > D4: Covered under 1.c. > > D.5. > · A Doria (104): “I do not support the possible separation of … the IANA function, into separate … subfunctions. I consider that a possible risk to the stability and security of the Internet. I see IANA, not any single directory, as the actual root of the Internet and am concerned about possible inconsistencies that might develop were IANA to be split…” > > The consensus proposal does not share the opinion that splitting the IANA functions by OC is a serious risk (although we have recognised the risk of inconsistencies with our response on 1.c. requesting the OCs to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator > > No further action is required. > > D.6. > · Centre for Internet and Society (126): Recommends splitting the three IANA functions (“allows for technical specialisation leading to greater efficiency; allows for more direct accountability, and no concentration of power; and allows for ease of shifting of the … IANA functions operator without affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function operators.”) > > The proposal has been developed based on the requirements of the three OCs. It is based on a general consensus in each community process. While this might be a possible solution, it was not adopted. (It is likely it would have been opposed without a clear need, given the significant changes that this would introduce.) > > No further action is required. > > E. > · GNSO IPC (125): “in one very important aspect, the IPC believes that the proposal does not support and certainly does not enhance the multistakeholder model. In the bodies created by the CWG … representation from the GNSO stakeholder communities is set at the stakeholder group level. … the IPC will, more likely than not, fail to be directly represented on those bodies.” > > Representation on different bodies has to be a compromise that balances representation against the manageable size of different groups. Representation from the GNSO (in comparison with other communities) was discussed at length in the CWG for the SCWG and gTLD interests have a significantly larger representation than any other community (six seats on the SCWG and five on the IANA Function Review Teams, compared with three ccTLDs and one from other communities). Given the delicate balance in these structures, and a general consensus, it would be inappropriate to ask the CWG to re-open this discussion. > > No further action required. > > Happy to discuss in the next 30 minutes! > > > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Oct 22 10:19:58 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Possible In-Reply-To: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> References: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> Possible text on Jurisdiction: A number of comments highlighted the issue of Jurisdiction as important. A minority objected to any transition at all because they perceived that US was relinquishing jurisdiction. Another minority point of view raised concerns that the jurisdiction was not international or outside of the US. A number of comments also suggested that CCWG Workstream 2 might be a place to address some of the continued concerns about jurisdiction. The majority of comments did not find jurisdiction as a limiting factor to the consideration proposal. From kdrazek at verisign.com Thu Oct 22 10:30:58 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:30:58 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Possible In-Reply-To: <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> References: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499A1A49@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I support Joe's proposed jurisdiction language below. It is factual and does not seek to predetermine the scope of discussion post-transition. Keith -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible Possible text on Jurisdiction: A number of comments highlighted the issue of Jurisdiction as important. A minority objected to any transition at all because they perceived that US was relinquishing jurisdiction. Another minority point of view raised concerns that the jurisdiction was not international or outside of the US. A number of comments also suggested that CCWG Workstream 2 might be a place to address some of the continued concerns about jurisdiction. The majority of comments did not find jurisdiction as a limiting factor to the consideration proposal. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com Thu Oct 22 10:35:10 2015 From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:35:10 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Possible In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499A1A49@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499A1A49@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <92C06CEF-3EC6-4A0C-BF2F-115AEA2443A6@Internet-Matters.com> I also support Joe's suggested text. Lynn On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:30 AM, "Drazek, Keith" wrote: > I support Joe's proposed jurisdiction language below. It is factual and does not seek to predetermine the scope of discussion post-transition. > > Keith > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible > > Possible text on Jurisdiction: > > A number of comments highlighted the issue of Jurisdiction as important. A minority objected to any transition at all because they perceived that US was relinquishing jurisdiction. Another minority point of view raised concerns that the jurisdiction was not international or outside of the US. A number of comments also suggested that CCWG Workstream 2 might be a place to address some of the continued > concerns about jurisdiction. The majority of comments did not find > jurisdiction as a limiting factor to the consideration proposal. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From housley at vigilsec.com Thu Oct 22 10:38:21 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <17238732.218.1445505971971.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <17238732.218.1445505971971.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <35B128BD-1A1D-403B-BEC5-BFF090104237@vigilsec.com> I do not think we are asking for any more comments from the ICANN Board. I hope we will soon be sending the proposal to the ICANN Board for transmission to NTIA. The ICANN Board has the opportunity to put a cover letter on it. They probably need to read the revised Exec. Summary and Part 0 to decide what they want to say in the cover letter. They can begin that review in a few days; the ICANN Board does not need to wait for CCWG-Accountability to send their document. I hope our liaison can carry that message forward so that the ICANN Board can act promptly when the ICG gets confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability proposal meets the CWG-Stewardship requirements. Russ On Oct 22, 2015, at 5:26 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Daniel & All, > > we had clearly indicated that the ICANN Board could, like any other component of the global Internet community, make known its position through the Public Comment mechanism. So I don't think if would be appropriate to provide a special, additional mechanism for the Board. As was remarked several times in our meetings, we have two Liaisons, and that is the normal channel to the Board and to IANA, in the same way that each one of us communicates with her/his community. > > Several months ago, when we discussed how to send our Transition Proposal to the NTIA, and based on best international practices, I had proposed that the ICG Chair address the Proposal, with a letter, to the Administrator of the NTIA, c/o the Chair of the ICANN Board. A copy can be sent to the ICANN CEO. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > À: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 09:57:44 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > > Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? > > On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >> Kuo: >> >> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would >> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we >> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was >> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in >> clarifying that our work is nearly done. >> >> Joe >> >> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >>> for CWG confirmation. >>> >>> Kuo Wu >>> >>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>>> 15:02 寫道： >>>> >>>> Kuo, >>>> >>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>> >>>> My personal thoughts >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>> >>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>>> the >>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>> >>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>> >>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alissa >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>> states: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Thu Oct 22 10:39:05 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:39:05 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Possible In-Reply-To: <92C06CEF-3EC6-4A0C-BF2F-115AEA2443A6@Internet-Matters.com> Message-ID: <31714725.355.1445510343833.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Joe +1. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Lynn St.Amour" À: "IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group" Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 11:35:10 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible I also support Joe's suggested text. Lynn On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:30 AM, "Drazek, Keith" wrote: > I support Joe's proposed jurisdiction language below. It is factual and does not seek to predetermine the scope of discussion post-transition. > > Keith > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible > > Possible text on Jurisdiction: > > A number of comments highlighted the issue of Jurisdiction as important. A minority objected to any transition at all because they perceived that US was relinquishing jurisdiction. Another minority point of view raised concerns that the jurisdiction was not international or outside of the US. A number of comments also suggested that CCWG Workstream 2 might be a place to address some of the continued > concerns about jurisdiction. The majority of comments did not find > jurisdiction as a limiting factor to the consideration proposal. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk Thu Oct 22 10:40:56 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:40:56 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Possible In-Reply-To: <92C06CEF-3EC6-4A0C-BF2F-115AEA2443A6@Internet-Matters.com> References: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499A1A49@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <92C06CEF-3EC6-4A0C-BF2F-115AEA2443A6@Internet-Matters.com> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B805EB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> This does make a great improvement - I support. -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: 22 October 2015 11:35 To: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible I also support Joe's suggested text. Lynn On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:30 AM, "Drazek, Keith" wrote: > I support Joe's proposed jurisdiction language below. It is factual and does not seek to predetermine the scope of discussion post-transition. > > Keith > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible > > Possible text on Jurisdiction: > > A number of comments highlighted the issue of Jurisdiction as important. A minority objected to any transition at all because they perceived that US was relinquishing jurisdiction. Another minority point of view raised concerns that the jurisdiction was not international or outside of the US. A number of comments also suggested that CCWG Workstream 2 might be a place to address some of the continued > concerns about jurisdiction. The majority of comments did not find > jurisdiction as a limiting factor to the consideration proposal. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br Thu Oct 22 10:41:48 2015 From: jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br (Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:41:48 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: Possible In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499A1A49@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com>, <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499A1A49@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FE1C1FC03@URANO20.itamaraty.local> Likewise. Joe's text is accurate and does not predetermine the scope of the discussion on jurisdiction post-transition. Jandyr ________________________________________ De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] em nome de Drazek, Keith [kdrazek at verisign.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2015 8:30 Para: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible I support Joe's proposed jurisdiction language below. It is factual and does not seek to predetermine the scope of discussion post-transition. Keith -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible Possible text on Jurisdiction: A number of comments highlighted the issue of Jurisdiction as important. A minority objected to any transition at all because they perceived that US was relinquishing jurisdiction. Another minority point of view raised concerns that the jurisdiction was not international or outside of the US. A number of comments also suggested that CCWG Workstream 2 might be a place to address some of the continued concerns about jurisdiction. The majority of comments did not find jurisdiction as a limiting factor to the consideration proposal. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Thu Oct 22 10:43:06 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:43:06 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <35B128BD-1A1D-403B-BEC5-BFF090104237@vigilsec.com> References: <17238732.218.1445505971971.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <35B128BD-1A1D-403B-BEC5-BFF090104237@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: On 22 Oct 2015, at 11:38, Russ Housley wrote: > They can begin that review in a few days; the ICANN Board does not need to wait for CCWG-Accountability to send their document. I really hope they are already working on it, as the document has always, in all versions, been available for the over all community, including ICANN Board. We do not have to send anything to ICANN Board for them to start working on that. We send the document when we think it is ready (according to other discussions we have). Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 22 10:45:22 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:45:22 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <17238732.218.1445505971971.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <17238732.218.1445505971971.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <5628BE42.4040203@ripe.net> Jean-Jaques, we had agreed that we would transmit to NTIA via the ICANN board and the ICANN board has committed to the time they would take to do this, 14 days if i remember correctly. The ICANN board has also stated that they will transmit the proposal unchangwd but that they might add comments. Personally I would also be fine with what you propose, but in my recollection we clearly agreed to the process of transmission via the ICANN board. Assuming that we stick to that agreement, we should aim for no substantive comments from the ICANN board. I would like us to ask the board to take note of our porposal as soon as we finish this editing round. This would prevent any last minute surprises. Daniel On 22.10.15 11:26 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Daniel & All, > > we had clearly indicated that the ICANN Board could, like any other component of the global Internet community, make known its position through the Public Comment mechanism. So I don't think if would be appropriate to provide a special, additional mechanism for the Board. As was remarked several times in our meetings, we have two Liaisons, and that is the normal channel to the Board and to IANA, in the same way that each one of us communicates with her/his community. > > Several months ago, when we discussed how to send our Transition Proposal to the NTIA, and based on best international practices, I had proposed that the ICG Chair address the Proposal, with a letter, to the Administrator of the NTIA, c/o the Chair of the ICANN Board. A copy can be sent to the ICANN CEO. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > À: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 09:57:44 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > > Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? > > On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >> Kuo: >> >> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would >> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we >> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was >> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in >> clarifying that our work is nearly done. >> >> Joe >> >> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >>> for CWG confirmation. >>> >>> Kuo Wu >>> >>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>>> 15:02 寫道： >>>> >>>> Kuo, >>>> >>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>> >>>> My personal thoughts >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>> >>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>>> the >>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>> >>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>> >>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alissa >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>> states: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Oct 22 10:46:52 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:46:52 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Possible dependency language In-Reply-To: <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> References: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5628BE9C.2050508@oracle.com> Dependencies: A number of comments highlighted concerns that there were issues external to the Transition Proposal that could impact the proposal – collectively these were referred to as Dependencies.Four main dependencies were highlighted.A small minority of comments were concerned that all of the parallel accountability work in the CCWG needed to be concluded before the proposal was finalized.Another small minority of comments highlighted the importance of resolving the RZM as essential to finalizing the proposal.The two most prevalent dependencies highlighted, though still an overall minority of comments, focused on the need to resolve the outstanding issues related to IANA IPR as well as the need to finalize the accountability external dependency issues of the Names proposal.A number of comments on the dependency on the Names proposal, did not raise issue with substance, but rather a concern that the proposal could not be considered complete without CWG assurance that there were no more external accountability dependencies. Do we want a section on Intervening resolution of dependencies? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fmniebel at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 10:47:55 2015 From: fmniebel at gmail.com (michael niebel) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:47:55 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: Possible In-Reply-To: <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FE1C1FC03@URANO20.itamaraty.local> References: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499A1A49@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FE1C1FC03@URANO20.itamaraty.local> Message-ID: Agree. Just one question: does the last sentence " The majority of comments .." mean the majority of comments that raised the jurisdiction issue or the overall majority of comments ? Michael On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior < jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br> wrote: > Likewise. > > Joe's text is accurate and does not predetermine the scope of the > discussion on jurisdiction post-transition. > > > Jandyr > ________________________________________ > De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] em nome de Drazek, Keith > [kdrazek at verisign.com] > Enviado: quinta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2015 8:30 > Para: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible > > I support Joe's proposed jurisdiction language below. It is factual and > does not seek to predetermine the scope of discussion post-transition. > > Keith > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > joseph alhadeff > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible > > Possible text on Jurisdiction: > > A number of comments highlighted the issue of Jurisdiction as important. > A minority objected to any transition at all because they perceived that US > was relinquishing jurisdiction. Another minority point of view raised > concerns that the jurisdiction was not international or outside of the US. > A number of comments also suggested that CCWG Workstream 2 might be a place > to address some of the continued > concerns about jurisdiction. The majority of comments did not find > jurisdiction as a limiting factor to the consideration proposal. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 22 10:47:58 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:47:58 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <17238732.218.1445505971971.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <35B128BD-1A1D-403B-BEC5-BFF090104237@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <5628BEDE.7010409@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 22.10.15 12:43 , Patrik Fältström wrote: > On 22 Oct 2015, at 11:38, Russ Housley wrote: > >> They can begin that review in a few days; the ICANN Board does >> not need to wait for CCWG-Accountability to send their document. > > I really hope they are already working on it, as the document has > always, in all versions, been available for the over all community, > including ICANN Board. Read Kuo's messages. Your hope may be just that. Hope > > We do not have to send anything to ICANN Board for them to start > working on that. Our board liaison has indicated that he would welcome a message explaining our expectation that they will look at it. So, do we want to do that? > > We send the document when we think it is ready (according to other > discussions we have). > > Patrik > > > > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing > list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWKL7eAAoJENDY5Emqa716KtUQALI30Io3NmNaYCMnICLO1S6F EDXBSGTN8M9+zYAp+RjvgH4ZE4gppd7Sk5P9c8VIrbDwjhxoNhMufSB9OYLgDJRB a/hfVFJICCCMFy40aw4AXNPICMdaJ1QzV4Rw0FlxDnQK7JEfygQNJXpxfwRg+3SE OTqpOXnBaxobXpOUDTH0wZ6wheQDF1jgFT2MbQqM0p7zSIkLgzNQb29NQP0aQEsj r7G+21i95WCIHDUdBLN4AXyyfil/7q3RBgqRPeLVgp/0i04GoFt5fQDDo/F9g88i dOmKqKNs9FF3WK/hxJ6ObVv+/8mvyEPsQCqrom2BYxjxHxFB03gXF3aVjrYwfF1S 9FklNko0LIVH0gfVTP99S37fJ/Dsc3Ydr+YHsFPaWSsYrN0gio2Wf1Mgn6ChirNm n6sU4TSAhkIyxX/xTrstReZhsuyTLnzsSTX3W54lyuITxgpvoKNrg+D0VIG2+ry5 V9M1Uq3xk0Z8NMxFn2un7KW6zHYTl82Wilg0P9h3xNerdmA0YiJF4DfHxIPtmBNC ekr7KJD/mKmGn366LrzrXFKpiPxVt5bH8XAk366917QzKFaIw+uU3ZzGxS2t4bAL aAS6APndX+l8te/5yWqX+2RDy571sZ3o2ekRCSudl7e7HmowHXVq7iXJnhMoVBWS GAQJcm7G7D3hM7nbb+b5 =eSpq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Oct 22 10:48:53 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:48:53 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <5628BE42.4040203@ripe.net> References: <17238732.218.1445505971971.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <5628BE42.4040203@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5628BF15.3020405@oracle.com> I think the resolution was we send formally to ICANN Board but copy to NTIA? On 10/22/2015 6:45 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Jean-Jaques, > > we had agreed that we would transmit to NTIA via the ICANN board and the > ICANN board has committed to the time they would take to do this, 14 > days if i remember correctly. The ICANN board has also stated that they > will transmit the proposal unchangwd but that they might add comments. > > Personally I would also be fine with what you propose, but in my > recollection we clearly agreed to the process of transmission via the > ICANN board. > > Assuming that we stick to that agreement, we should aim for no > substantive comments from the ICANN board. I would like us to ask the > board to take note of our porposal as soon as we finish this editing > round. This would prevent any last minute surprises. > > Daniel > > > > On 22.10.15 11:26 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> Daniel & All, >> >> we had clearly indicated that the ICANN Board could, like any other component of the global Internet community, make known its position through the Public Comment mechanism. So I don't think if would be appropriate to provide a special, additional mechanism for the Board. As was remarked several times in our meetings, we have two Liaisons, and that is the normal channel to the Board and to IANA, in the same way that each one of us communicates with her/his community. >> >> Several months ago, when we discussed how to send our Transition Proposal to the NTIA, and based on best international practices, I had proposed that the ICG Chair address the Proposal, with a letter, to the Administrator of the NTIA, c/o the Chair of the ICANN Board. A copy can be sent to the ICANN CEO. >> >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 09:57:44 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >> >> Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? >> >> On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >>> Kuo: >>> >>> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would >>> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we >>> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was >>> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in >>> clarifying that our work is nearly done. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >>>> for CWG confirmation. >>>> >>>> Kuo Wu >>>> >>>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>>>> 15:02 寫道： >>>>> >>>>> Kuo, >>>>> >>>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>>> >>>>> My personal thoughts >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>>> >>>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>>>> the >>>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>>> >>>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>>> states: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Oct 22 10:50:44 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:50:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: Possible In-Reply-To: References: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499A1A49@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FE1C1FC03@URANO20.itamaraty.local> Message-ID: <5628BF84.1090505@oracle.com> overall. Would that word as a modifier to comments address the confusion? the majority of overall comments... On 10/22/2015 6:47 AM, michael niebel wrote: > Agree. Just one question: does the last sentence " The majority of > comments .." mean the majority of comments that raised the > jurisdiction issue or the overall majority of comments ? > Michael > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior > > wrote: > > Likewise. > > Joe's text is accurate and does not predetermine the scope of the > discussion on jurisdiction post-transition. > > > Jandyr > ________________________________________ > De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] em nome de Drazek, Keith > [kdrazek at verisign.com ] > Enviado: quinta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2015 8:30 > Para: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org > > Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible > > I support Joe's proposed jurisdiction language below. It is > factual and does not seek to predetermine the scope of discussion > post-transition. > > Keith > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible > > Possible text on Jurisdiction: > > A number of comments highlighted the issue of Jurisdiction as > important. A minority objected to any transition at all because > they perceived that US was relinquishing jurisdiction. Another > minority point of view raised concerns that the jurisdiction was > not international or outside of the US. A number of comments also > suggested that CCWG Workstream 2 might be a place to address some > of the continued > concerns about jurisdiction. The majority of comments did not find > jurisdiction as a limiting factor to the consideration proposal. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fmniebel at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 11:20:31 2015 From: fmniebel at gmail.com (michael niebel) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:20:31 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: Possible In-Reply-To: <5628BF84.1090505@oracle.com> References: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499A1A49@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FE1C1FC03@URANO20.itamaraty.local> <5628BF84.1090505@oracle.com> Message-ID: Yes, Joe, it would. >From a systematic point of view: are we positioning also other issues with regard to the question whether they are "considered as a limiting factor to the consideration of the proposal" ? Michael On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:50 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > overall. Would that word as a modifier to comments address the > confusion? the majority of overall comments... > > On 10/22/2015 6:47 AM, michael niebel wrote: > > Agree. Just one question: does the last sentence " The majority of > comments .." mean the majority of comments that raised the jurisdiction > issue or the overall majority of comments ? > Michael > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior < > jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br> wrote: > >> Likewise. >> >> Joe's text is accurate and does not predetermine the scope of the >> discussion on jurisdiction post-transition. >> >> >> Jandyr >> ________________________________________ >> De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] em nome de Drazek, >> Keith [kdrazek at verisign.com] >> Enviado: quinta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2015 8:30 >> Para: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible >> >> I support Joe's proposed jurisdiction language below. It is factual and >> does not seek to predetermine the scope of discussion post-transition. >> >> Keith >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> joseph alhadeff >> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible >> >> Possible text on Jurisdiction: >> >> A number of comments highlighted the issue of Jurisdiction as important. >> A minority objected to any transition at all because they perceived that US >> was relinquishing jurisdiction. Another minority point of view raised >> concerns that the jurisdiction was not international or outside of the US. >> A number of comments also suggested that CCWG Workstream 2 might be a place >> to address some of the continued >> concerns about jurisdiction. The majority of comments did not find >> jurisdiction as a limiting factor to the consideration proposal. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Thu Oct 22 11:30:08 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:30:08 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <5628BE42.4040203@ripe.net> Message-ID: <21348416.427.1445513404684.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Daniel, exactly. I see no difference at all between your summary (below), and my proposal, made early on: - to NTIA via ICANN Board. I simply made clear that it should be from ICG Chair to NTIA Administrator, c/o ICANN Board Chair. I proposed this clarification because some colleagues had suggested sending it to ICANN CEO, which would not be appropriate, because ICG is independent from ICANN. - Board shall not bring any change to our Transition Proposal, but in its transmission letter to NTIA, of course it can include anything it wishes. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 11:45:22 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 Jean-Jaques, we had agreed that we would transmit to NTIA via the ICANN board and the ICANN board has committed to the time they would take to do this, 14 days if i remember correctly. The ICANN board has also stated that they will transmit the proposal unchangwd but that they might add comments. Personally I would also be fine with what you propose, but in my recollection we clearly agreed to the process of transmission via the ICANN board. Assuming that we stick to that agreement, we should aim for no substantive comments from the ICANN board. I would like us to ask the board to take note of our porposal as soon as we finish this editing round. This would prevent any last minute surprises. Daniel On 22.10.15 11:26 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Daniel & All, > > we had clearly indicated that the ICANN Board could, like any other component of the global Internet community, make known its position through the Public Comment mechanism. So I don't think if would be appropriate to provide a special, additional mechanism for the Board. As was remarked several times in our meetings, we have two Liaisons, and that is the normal channel to the Board and to IANA, in the same way that each one of us communicates with her/his community. > > Several months ago, when we discussed how to send our Transition Proposal to the NTIA, and based on best international practices, I had proposed that the ICG Chair address the Proposal, with a letter, to the Administrator of the NTIA, c/o the Chair of the ICANN Board. A copy can be sent to the ICANN CEO. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > À: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 09:57:44 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > > Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? > > On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >> Kuo: >> >> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would >> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we >> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was >> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in >> clarifying that our work is nearly done. >> >> Joe >> >> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >>> for CWG confirmation. >>> >>> Kuo Wu >>> >>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>>> 15:02 寫道： >>>> >>>> Kuo, >>>> >>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>> >>>> My personal thoughts >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>> >>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>>> the >>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>> >>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>> >>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alissa >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>> states: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From paf at frobbit.se Thu Oct 22 11:40:35 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:40:35 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <5628BEDE.7010409@ripe.net> References: <17238732.218.1445505971971.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <35B128BD-1A1D-403B-BEC5-BFF090104237@vigilsec.com> <5628BEDE.7010409@ripe.net> Message-ID: On 22 Oct 2015, at 11:47, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> We do not have to send anything to ICANN Board for them to start >> working on that. > > Our board liaison has indicated that he would welcome a message > explaining our expectation that they will look at it. So, do we want > to do that? My suggestion is that we phrase our wording when we are done "as far as we can come given the dependencies" in such a way so that we make it clear that _anyone_ in our community can do whatever they interpret they can spend time on can do so. And then our liaison(s) to various groups can pass that message on. I do not, given the previous statement by Board that they will participate like other groups, single them out. But I might be in the minority in the ICG and in that case I of course accept what others suggest. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From yannis at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 22 11:44:32 2015 From: yannis at icgsec.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:44:32 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #7 Day 3 Attendance & Chat Transcript Message-ID: Dear ICG Members, Please find the attendance list (below) and chat transcript (attached) for Day 3, 18th Oct of the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #7: ICG Members Alan Barrett (NRO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Michael Niebel (GAC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Liaison Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Kuo-wei Wu (Board Liaison) Apologies James Bladel (GNSO) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Best Regards, Yannis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG F2F Meeting #7 Day 3 Chat Transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 91092 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 22 11:48:51 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:48:51 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <21348416.427.1445513404684.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <21348416.427.1445513404684.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <5628CD23.1030604@ripe.net> finer points indeed. i agree that sending it to the ICANN CEO would not be appropriate. our chair should send it to the ICANN board chair with a cover letter asking to transmit it expeditiously to NTIA as agreed. Kuo has said quite clearly he would welcome us to ask the board to take a look at our draft after this round of editing. I support that. Our chair should write a note to the ICANN board chair to that effect. This is not to give the ICANN board any special status. It is intended so that we know about possible comments they might make to NTIA so that we have the opportunity to consider them before they are made. i am not suggesting that we ask the ICANN board to comment to *us*. In essence all I am suggesting is to take advantage of the fact that there is time now, before CCWG concludes. Daniel On 22.10.15 13:30 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Daniel, > > exactly. I see no difference at all between your summary (below), and my proposal, made early on: > - to NTIA via ICANN Board. I simply made clear that it should be from ICG Chair to NTIA Administrator, c/o ICANN Board Chair. I proposed this clarification because some colleagues had suggested sending it to ICANN CEO, which would not be appropriate, because ICG is independent from ICANN. > - Board shall not bring any change to our Transition Proposal, but in its transmission letter to NTIA, of course it can include anything it wishes. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 11:45:22 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 > > Jean-Jaques, > > we had agreed that we would transmit to NTIA via the ICANN board and the > ICANN board has committed to the time they would take to do this, 14 > days if i remember correctly. The ICANN board has also stated that they > will transmit the proposal unchangwd but that they might add comments. > > Personally I would also be fine with what you propose, but in my > recollection we clearly agreed to the process of transmission via the > ICANN board. > > Assuming that we stick to that agreement, we should aim for no > substantive comments from the ICANN board. I would like us to ask the > board to take note of our porposal as soon as we finish this editing > round. This would prevent any last minute surprises. > > Daniel > > > > On 22.10.15 11:26 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> Daniel & All, >> >> we had clearly indicated that the ICANN Board could, like any other component of the global Internet community, make known its position through the Public Comment mechanism. So I don't think if would be appropriate to provide a special, additional mechanism for the Board. As was remarked several times in our meetings, we have two Liaisons, and that is the normal channel to the Board and to IANA, in the same way that each one of us communicates with her/his community. >> >> Several months ago, when we discussed how to send our Transition Proposal to the NTIA, and based on best international practices, I had proposed that the ICG Chair address the Proposal, with a letter, to the Administrator of the NTIA, c/o the Chair of the ICANN Board. A copy can be sent to the ICANN CEO. >> >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 09:57:44 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >> >> Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? >> >> On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >>> Kuo: >>> >>> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would >>> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we >>> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was >>> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in >>> clarifying that our work is nearly done. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >>>> for CWG confirmation. >>>> >>>> Kuo Wu >>>> >>>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>>>> 15:02 寫道： >>>>> >>>>> Kuo, >>>>> >>>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>>> >>>>> My personal thoughts >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>>> >>>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>>>> the >>>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>>> >>>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>>> states: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 22 12:14:27 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:14:27 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Two Edits to the Executive Summary as Suggested Earlier Message-ID: <5628D323.5000908@ripe.net> Here are two edits to the executive summary I suggested earlier. They are reflected in "IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy-alc" as comments. I suggest to strike these words from the executive summary and to keep them in the proposal proper. These only intent is to remove detail for clarity and readability. If any of you think this detail is needed let us keep it and move on. Daniel ---- "X016 Coordination across the operational communities is clearly an essential component of the Internet's successful development to date and collaboration is an integral part of the communities’ operational and policy development processes. In the specific case of the IANA functions, each community has clearly confirmed to the ICG its ongoing commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the situation we have today, where registries from the three communities are administered by the IANA Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run, are decentralized." I propose to delete the final sentence so that the paragraph reads: "X016 Coordination across the operational communities is clearly an essential component of the Internet's successful development to date and collaboration is an integral part of the communities’ operational and policy development processes. In the specific case of the IANA functions, each community has clearly confirmed to the ICG its ongoing commitment to cooperation. " --- "X017 The three proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA functions, relying mostly on the right of each operational community to select a new entity for the performance of the IANA functions." I propose to delete the part after the comma so that the paragraph reads: "X017 The three proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA functions." --- From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 22 12:18:10 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:18:10 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Possible dependency language In-Reply-To: <5628BE9C.2050508@oracle.com> References: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> <5628BE9C.2050508@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5628D402.3090709@ripe.net> As far as I remember the comments this is a fair and clear summary. On 22.10.15 12:46 , joseph alhadeff wrote: > Dependencies: > > A number of comments highlighted concerns that there were issues > external to the Transition Proposal that could impact the proposal – > collectively these were referred to as Dependencies. Four main > dependencies were highlighted. A small minority of comments were > concerned that all of the parallel accountability work in the CCWG > needed to be concluded before the proposal was finalized. Another small > minority of comments highlighted the importance of resolving the RZM as > essential to finalizing the proposal. The two most prevalent > dependencies highlighted, though still an overall minority of comments, > focused on the need to resolve the outstanding issues related to IANA > IPR as well as the need to finalize the accountability external > dependency issues of the Names proposal. A number of comments on the > dependency on the Names proposal, did not raise issue with substance, > but rather a concern that the proposal could not be considered complete > without CWG assurance that there were no more external accountability > dependencies. > > Do we want a section on Intervening resolution of dependencies? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 13:06:53 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:06:53 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <5628CD23.1030604@ripe.net> References: <21348416.427.1445513404684.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <5628CD23.1030604@ripe.net> Message-ID: Daniel, Yes, that is what we agree. I already inform board and staff to study ICG draft carefully, and start to review the draft (hopefully, not much change for the final proposal). If ICG like to know board position before we make our comment, you are welcome to ask (which is ICG’s decision). Thanks. Kuo Wu > Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 19:48 寫道： > > finer points indeed. i agree that sending it to the ICANN CEO would not > be appropriate. our chair should send it to the ICANN board chair with a > cover letter asking to transmit it expeditiously to NTIA as agreed. > > Kuo has said quite clearly he would welcome us to ask the board to take > a look at our draft after this round of editing. I support that. Our > chair should write a note to the ICANN board chair to that effect. > > This is not to give the ICANN board any special status. It is intended > so that we know about possible comments they might make to NTIA so that > we have the opportunity to consider them before they are made. i am not > suggesting that we ask the ICANN board to comment to *us*. > > In essence all I am suggesting is to take advantage of the fact that > there is time now, before CCWG concludes. > > Daniel > > > On 22.10.15 13:30 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> Daniel, >> >> exactly. I see no difference at all between your summary (below), and my proposal, made early on: >> - to NTIA via ICANN Board. I simply made clear that it should be from ICG Chair to NTIA Administrator, c/o ICANN Board Chair. I proposed this clarification because some colleagues had suggested sending it to ICANN CEO, which would not be appropriate, because ICG is independent from ICANN. >> - Board shall not bring any change to our Transition Proposal, but in its transmission letter to NTIA, of course it can include anything it wishes. >> >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 11:45:22 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >> >> Jean-Jaques, >> >> we had agreed that we would transmit to NTIA via the ICANN board and the >> ICANN board has committed to the time they would take to do this, 14 >> days if i remember correctly. The ICANN board has also stated that they >> will transmit the proposal unchangwd but that they might add comments. >> >> Personally I would also be fine with what you propose, but in my >> recollection we clearly agreed to the process of transmission via the >> ICANN board. >> >> Assuming that we stick to that agreement, we should aim for no >> substantive comments from the ICANN board. I would like us to ask the >> board to take note of our porposal as soon as we finish this editing >> round. This would prevent any last minute surprises. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> On 22.10.15 11:26 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>> Daniel & All, >>> >>> we had clearly indicated that the ICANN Board could, like any other component of the global Internet community, make known its position through the Public Comment mechanism. So I don't think if would be appropriate to provide a special, additional mechanism for the Board. As was remarked several times in our meetings, we have two Liaisons, and that is the normal channel to the Board and to IANA, in the same way that each one of us communicates with her/his community. >>> >>> Several months ago, when we discussed how to send our Transition Proposal to the NTIA, and based on best international practices, I had proposed that the ICG Chair address the Proposal, with a letter, to the Administrator of the NTIA, c/o the Chair of the ICANN Board. A copy can be sent to the ICANN CEO. >>> >>> Jean-Jacques. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >>> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 09:57:44 >>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>> >>> Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? >>> >>> On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >>>> Kuo: >>>> >>>> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would >>>> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we >>>> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was >>>> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in >>>> clarifying that our work is nearly done. >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >>>>> for CWG confirmation. >>>>> >>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>> >>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>>>>> 15:02 寫道： >>>>>> >>>>>> Kuo, >>>>>> >>>>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>>>> >>>>>> My personal thoughts >>>>>> >>>>>> Daniel >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>>>> states: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 keith at internetnz.net.nz Thu Oct 22 13:07:14 2015 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 02:07:14 +1300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Day 4 Friday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5628DF82.7080507@internetnz.net.nz> Hi all, My apologies for Friday F2F meeting, I am travelling towards home and will try and join remotely for some of the sessions... Cheers Keith From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 22 13:42:30 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:42:30 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Apologies for the Friday session. In-Reply-To: <22eggn2h1n.fsf@netnod.se> References: <22eggn2h1n.fsf@netnod.se> Message-ID: <01da01d10ccf$82a8a8f0$87f9fad0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Lars-Johan sends his apologies for the Friday meeting. Thank you Lars-Johan for letting us know, safe travels! Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Lars-Johan Liman [mailto:liman at netnod.se] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 2:02 PM To: admin at icgsec.asia Subject: Apologies for the Friday session. Jennifer, all, I have to express my apologies also for the ICG meeting tomorrow, Friday, here in Dublin, as I need to travel back to Sweden, and my flight leaves in the morning. Please forward this to the group. Best regards, /Lars-Johan Liman From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Oct 22 13:44:09 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:44:09 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: Possible In-Reply-To: References: <013101d10cb0$c160f7b0$4422e710$@icgsec.asia> <5628B84E.2010203@oracle.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499A1A49@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FE1C1FC03@URANO20.itamaraty.local> <5628BF84.1090505@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5628E828.4080709@oracle.com> Different forms of language have been used to the same end. A majority of comments supported... I chose this construction, because the majority of comments which may have even included other concerns did not bring up jurisdiction and some that did, did not suggest that it precluded moving forward on the transition. On 10/22/2015 7:20 AM, michael niebel wrote: > Yes, Joe, it would. > > From a systematic point of view: are we positioning also other issues > with regard to the question whether they are "considered as a limiting > factor to the consideration of the proposal" ? > > Michael > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:50 AM, joseph alhadeff > > wrote: > > overall. Would that word as a modifier to comments address the > confusion? the majority of overall comments... > > On 10/22/2015 6:47 AM, michael niebel wrote: >> Agree. Just one question: does the last sentence " The majority >> of comments .." mean the majority of comments that raised the >> jurisdiction issue or the overall majority of comments ? >> Michael >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos >> Junior > > wrote: >> >> Likewise. >> >> Joe's text is accurate and does not predetermine the scope of >> the discussion on jurisdiction post-transition. >> >> >> Jandyr >> ________________________________________ >> De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >> ] em nome de Drazek, >> Keith [kdrazek at verisign.com ] >> Enviado: quinta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2015 8:30 >> Para: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> >> Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible >> >> I support Joe's proposed jurisdiction language below. It is >> factual and does not seek to predetermine the scope of >> discussion post-transition. >> >> Keith >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >> ] On Behalf Of joseph >> alhadeff >> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible >> >> Possible text on Jurisdiction: >> >> A number of comments highlighted the issue of Jurisdiction as >> important. A minority objected to any transition at all >> because they perceived that US was relinquishing >> jurisdiction. Another minority point of view raised concerns >> that the jurisdiction was not international or outside of the >> US. A number of comments also suggested that CCWG Workstream >> 2 might be a place to address some of the continued >> concerns about jurisdiction. The majority of comments did >> not find >> jurisdiction as a limiting factor to the consideration proposal. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From housley at vigilsec.com Thu Oct 22 14:42:45 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:42:45 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: References: <21348416.427.1445513404684.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <5628CD23.1030604@ripe.net> Message-ID: <39CAC4CB-F453-47C9-BF89-A939F0AB5357@vigilsec.com> Kuo: I'm sure you misspoke here. The Board has already promised to send the proposal without modification. However, they do have the opportunity to attach a cover letter. They should work on that letter as soon as the proposal is finished -- just a few days from now. The Board already sent comments during the public review, so the Exec Summary and Part 0 are the only parts that have changed since their last review It should be a simple and straightforward review. Russ On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:06 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: > Daniel, > > Yes, that is what we agree. > > I already inform board and staff to study ICG draft carefully, and start to review the draft (hopefully, not much change for the final proposal). If ICG like to know board position before we make our comment, you are welcome to ask (which is ICG’s decision). > > Thanks. > > Kuo Wu > >> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 19:48 寫道： >> >> finer points indeed. i agree that sending it to the ICANN CEO would not >> be appropriate. our chair should send it to the ICANN board chair with a >> cover letter asking to transmit it expeditiously to NTIA as agreed. >> >> Kuo has said quite clearly he would welcome us to ask the board to take >> a look at our draft after this round of editing. I support that. Our >> chair should write a note to the ICANN board chair to that effect. >> >> This is not to give the ICANN board any special status. It is intended >> so that we know about possible comments they might make to NTIA so that >> we have the opportunity to consider them before they are made. i am not >> suggesting that we ask the ICANN board to comment to *us*. >> >> In essence all I am suggesting is to take advantage of the fact that >> there is time now, before CCWG concludes. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> On 22.10.15 13:30 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>> Daniel, >>> >>> exactly. I see no difference at all between your summary (below), and my proposal, made early on: >>> - to NTIA via ICANN Board. I simply made clear that it should be from ICG Chair to NTIA Administrator, c/o ICANN Board Chair. I proposed this clarification because some colleagues had suggested sending it to ICANN CEO, which would not be appropriate, because ICG is independent from ICANN. >>> - Board shall not bring any change to our Transition Proposal, but in its transmission letter to NTIA, of course it can include anything it wishes. >>> >>> Jean-Jacques. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >>> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 11:45:22 >>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>> >>> Jean-Jaques, >>> >>> we had agreed that we would transmit to NTIA via the ICANN board and the >>> ICANN board has committed to the time they would take to do this, 14 >>> days if i remember correctly. The ICANN board has also stated that they >>> will transmit the proposal unchangwd but that they might add comments. >>> >>> Personally I would also be fine with what you propose, but in my >>> recollection we clearly agreed to the process of transmission via the >>> ICANN board. >>> >>> Assuming that we stick to that agreement, we should aim for no >>> substantive comments from the ICANN board. I would like us to ask the >>> board to take note of our porposal as soon as we finish this editing >>> round. This would prevent any last minute surprises. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> >>> On 22.10.15 11:26 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>> Daniel & All, >>>> >>>> we had clearly indicated that the ICANN Board could, like any other component of the global Internet community, make known its position through the Public Comment mechanism. So I don't think if would be appropriate to provide a special, additional mechanism for the Board. As was remarked several times in our meetings, we have two Liaisons, and that is the normal channel to the Board and to IANA, in the same way that each one of us communicates with her/his community. >>>> >>>> Several months ago, when we discussed how to send our Transition Proposal to the NTIA, and based on best international practices, I had proposed that the ICG Chair address the Proposal, with a letter, to the Administrator of the NTIA, c/o the Chair of the ICANN Board. A copy can be sent to the ICANN CEO. >>>> >>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >>>> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 09:57:44 >>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>> >>>> Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? >>>> >>>> On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >>>>> Kuo: >>>>> >>>>> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would >>>>> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we >>>>> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was >>>>> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in >>>>> clarifying that our work is nearly done. >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >>>>>> for CWG confirmation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>>> >>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>>>>>> 15:02 寫道： >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kuo, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>>>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>>>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>>>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>>>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>>>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My personal thoughts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>>>>> states: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 22 14:44:39 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:44:39 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Day 3: Action Items Message-ID: <025001d10cd8$3187d5f0$949781d0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, As confirmed by the chairs, please find the action items list from the Day 3 meeting below: 1. Ismail and Alhadeff to incorporate edits on public comment summary document based on input from Day 3's meeting and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list by tonight (Thursday 22 Oct, Dublin local time). 2. St. Amour to revise the implementation action item inventory spreadsheet for publication today (Thursday 22 Oct, Dublin local time). Cooper to add a reference to the published spreadsheet in the form of a footnote in the transition proposal. 3. ICG members to send any line edits to the transition proposal by email to the internal-cg mailing list by 23:59 IST today (Thursday 22, Oct, Dublin local time). 4. Cooper to incorporate edits on the transition proposal based on input from Day 3's meeting and input sent to the internal-cg mailing list (see Action Item 3) for ICG discussion at the Day 4 meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 15:08:37 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:08:37 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <39CAC4CB-F453-47C9-BF89-A939F0AB5357@vigilsec.com> References: <21348416.427.1445513404684.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <5628CD23.1030604@ripe.net> <39CAC4CB-F453-47C9-BF89-A939F0AB5357@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <59999286-756F-464C-90EC-9FF833DE838C@gmail.com> Fair. That is what I asked board to prepare that. Kuo Wu > Russ Housley 於 2015年10月22日 22:42 寫道： > > Kuo: > > I'm sure you misspoke here. The Board has already promised to send the proposal without modification. However, they do have the opportunity to attach a cover letter. They should work on that letter as soon as the proposal is finished -- just a few days from now. > > The Board already sent comments during the public review, so the Exec Summary and Part 0 are the only parts that have changed since their last review It should be a simple and straightforward review. > > Russ > > On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:06 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: > >> Daniel, >> >> Yes, that is what we agree. >> >> I already inform board and staff to study ICG draft carefully, and start to review the draft (hopefully, not much change for the final proposal). If ICG like to know board position before we make our comment, you are welcome to ask (which is ICG’s decision). >> >> Thanks. >> >> Kuo Wu >> >>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 19:48 寫道： >>> >>> finer points indeed. i agree that sending it to the ICANN CEO would not >>> be appropriate. our chair should send it to the ICANN board chair with a >>> cover letter asking to transmit it expeditiously to NTIA as agreed. >>> >>> Kuo has said quite clearly he would welcome us to ask the board to take >>> a look at our draft after this round of editing. I support that. Our >>> chair should write a note to the ICANN board chair to that effect. >>> >>> This is not to give the ICANN board any special status. It is intended >>> so that we know about possible comments they might make to NTIA so that >>> we have the opportunity to consider them before they are made. i am not >>> suggesting that we ask the ICANN board to comment to *us*. >>> >>> In essence all I am suggesting is to take advantage of the fact that >>> there is time now, before CCWG concludes. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> On 22.10.15 13:30 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>> Daniel, >>>> >>>> exactly. I see no difference at all between your summary (below), and my proposal, made early on: >>>> - to NTIA via ICANN Board. I simply made clear that it should be from ICG Chair to NTIA Administrator, c/o ICANN Board Chair. I proposed this clarification because some colleagues had suggested sending it to ICANN CEO, which would not be appropriate, because ICG is independent from ICANN. >>>> - Board shall not bring any change to our Transition Proposal, but in its transmission letter to NTIA, of course it can include anything it wishes. >>>> >>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >>>> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" >>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 11:45:22 >>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>> >>>> Jean-Jaques, >>>> >>>> we had agreed that we would transmit to NTIA via the ICANN board and the >>>> ICANN board has committed to the time they would take to do this, 14 >>>> days if i remember correctly. The ICANN board has also stated that they >>>> will transmit the proposal unchangwd but that they might add comments. >>>> >>>> Personally I would also be fine with what you propose, but in my >>>> recollection we clearly agreed to the process of transmission via the >>>> ICANN board. >>>> >>>> Assuming that we stick to that agreement, we should aim for no >>>> substantive comments from the ICANN board. I would like us to ask the >>>> board to take note of our porposal as soon as we finish this editing >>>> round. This would prevent any last minute surprises. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22.10.15 11:26 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>>> Daniel & All, >>>>> >>>>> we had clearly indicated that the ICANN Board could, like any other component of the global Internet community, make known its position through the Public Comment mechanism. So I don't think if would be appropriate to provide a special, additional mechanism for the Board. As was remarked several times in our meetings, we have two Liaisons, and that is the normal channel to the Board and to IANA, in the same way that each one of us communicates with her/his community. >>>>> >>>>> Several months ago, when we discussed how to send our Transition Proposal to the NTIA, and based on best international practices, I had proposed that the ICG Chair address the Proposal, with a letter, to the Administrator of the NTIA, c/o the Chair of the ICANN Board. A copy can be sent to the ICANN CEO. >>>>> >>>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >>>>> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 09:57:44 >>>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>> >>>>> Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? >>>>> >>>>> On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >>>>>> Kuo: >>>>>> >>>>>> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would >>>>>> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we >>>>>> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was >>>>>> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in >>>>>> clarifying that our work is nearly done. >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>>>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >>>>>>> for CWG confirmation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>>>>>>> 15:02 寫道： >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kuo, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>>>>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>>>>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>>>>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>>>>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>>>>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My personal thoughts >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>>>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>>>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>>>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>>>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>>>>>> states: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From paf at frobbit.se Thu Oct 22 15:50:21 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:50:21 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 In-Reply-To: <59999286-756F-464C-90EC-9FF833DE838C@gmail.com> References: <21348416.427.1445513404684.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <5628CD23.1030604@ripe.net> <39CAC4CB-F453-47C9-BF89-A939F0AB5357@vigilsec.com> <59999286-756F-464C-90EC-9FF833DE838C@gmail.com> Message-ID: Excellent! Thanks Kuo-Wei! Patrik On 22 Oct 2015, at 16:08, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: > Fair. That is what I asked board to prepare that. > > Kuo Wu > >> Russ Housley 於 2015年10月22日 22:42 寫道： >> >> Kuo: >> >> I'm sure you misspoke here. The Board has already promised to send the proposal without modification. However, they do have the opportunity to attach a cover letter. They should work on that letter as soon as the proposal is finished -- just a few days from now. >> >> The Board already sent comments during the public review, so the Exec Summary and Part 0 are the only parts that have changed since their last review It should be a simple and straightforward review. >> >> Russ >> >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:06 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >> >>> Daniel, >>> >>> Yes, that is what we agree. >>> >>> I already inform board and staff to study ICG draft carefully, and start to review the draft (hopefully, not much change for the final proposal). If ICG like to know board position before we make our comment, you are welcome to ask (which is ICG’s decision). >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Kuo Wu >>> >>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 19:48 寫道： >>>> >>>> finer points indeed. i agree that sending it to the ICANN CEO would not >>>> be appropriate. our chair should send it to the ICANN board chair with a >>>> cover letter asking to transmit it expeditiously to NTIA as agreed. >>>> >>>> Kuo has said quite clearly he would welcome us to ask the board to take >>>> a look at our draft after this round of editing. I support that. Our >>>> chair should write a note to the ICANN board chair to that effect. >>>> >>>> This is not to give the ICANN board any special status. It is intended >>>> so that we know about possible comments they might make to NTIA so that >>>> we have the opportunity to consider them before they are made. i am not >>>> suggesting that we ask the ICANN board to comment to *us*. >>>> >>>> In essence all I am suggesting is to take advantage of the fact that >>>> there is time now, before CCWG concludes. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22.10.15 13:30 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>>> Daniel, >>>>> >>>>> exactly. I see no difference at all between your summary (below), and my proposal, made early on: >>>>> - to NTIA via ICANN Board. I simply made clear that it should be from ICG Chair to NTIA Administrator, c/o ICANN Board Chair. I proposed this clarification because some colleagues had suggested sending it to ICANN CEO, which would not be appropriate, because ICG is independent from ICANN. >>>>> - Board shall not bring any change to our Transition Proposal, but in its transmission letter to NTIA, of course it can include anything it wishes. >>>>> >>>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >>>>> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" >>>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 11:45:22 >>>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>> >>>>> Jean-Jaques, >>>>> >>>>> we had agreed that we would transmit to NTIA via the ICANN board and the >>>>> ICANN board has committed to the time they would take to do this, 14 >>>>> days if i remember correctly. The ICANN board has also stated that they >>>>> will transmit the proposal unchangwd but that they might add comments. >>>>> >>>>> Personally I would also be fine with what you propose, but in my >>>>> recollection we clearly agreed to the process of transmission via the >>>>> ICANN board. >>>>> >>>>> Assuming that we stick to that agreement, we should aim for no >>>>> substantive comments from the ICANN board. I would like us to ask the >>>>> board to take note of our porposal as soon as we finish this editing >>>>> round. This would prevent any last minute surprises. >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 22.10.15 11:26 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >>>>>> Daniel & All, >>>>>> >>>>>> we had clearly indicated that the ICANN Board could, like any other component of the global Internet community, make known its position through the Public Comment mechanism. So I don't think if would be appropriate to provide a special, additional mechanism for the Board. As was remarked several times in our meetings, we have two Liaisons, and that is the normal channel to the Board and to IANA, in the same way that each one of us communicates with her/his community. >>>>>> >>>>>> Several months ago, when we discussed how to send our Transition Proposal to the NTIA, and based on best international practices, I had proposed that the ICG Chair address the Proposal, with a letter, to the Administrator of the NTIA, c/o the Chair of the ICANN Board. A copy can be sent to the ICANN CEO. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>>>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" >>>>>> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 09:57:44 >>>>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe ICG should formally ask the board? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >>>>>>> Kuo: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would >>>>>>> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we >>>>>>> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was >>>>>>> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in >>>>>>> clarifying that our work is nearly done. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>>>>> I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting >>>>>>>> for CWG confirmation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg 於 2015年10月22日 >>>>>>>>> 15:02 寫道： >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kuo, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG >>>>>>>>> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before >>>>>>>>> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN >>>>>>>>> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is >>>>>>>>> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by >>>>>>>>> ICG/OCs already now while we wait for CWG confirmation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My personal thoughts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Alissa and all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final >>>>>>>>>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs >>>>>>>>>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major >>>>>>>>>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and >>>>>>>>>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> SLA details need to discuss) since then. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper > 於 2015年 >>>>>>>>>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道： >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Elise, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that >>>>>>>>>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and >>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were >>>>>>>>>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email >>>>>>>>>>>> states: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> “Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and >>>>>>>>>>>>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would >>>>>>>>>>>>> be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the performance of the naming functions." >>>>>>>>>>>> Did I miss something in the protocol parameters’ and numbers’ >>>>>>>>>>>> communities proposals? From my reading of their proposals as well as >>>>>>>>>>>> the summary in paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities >>>>>>>>>>>> proposed that the administrative staff, etc. would be legally >>>>>>>>>>>> transferred to PTI. I agree this is a pragmatic implementation >>>>>>>>>>>> approach, it is just that I do not see that approach documented in >>>>>>>>>>>> the numbers and protocol parameters proposals. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what >>>>>>>>>>>> is specified in the two individual proposals? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Elise >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>> > on behalf of Russ Mundy >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org " >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy > >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) >>>>>>>>>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t >>>>>>>>>>>>> have any further changes to suggest. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in >>>>>>>>>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others >>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m not wedded to these words so they can >>>>>>>>>>>>> be further improved or reverted if the group would prefers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I >>>>>>>>>>>>> think I’ve corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not the one being replaced by this transition, rather, it is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> contract that was awarded 2 Jul 2012 - I think that adding “a >>>>>>>>>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve placed a version titled: >>>>>>>>>>>>> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> RussM >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed PGP part >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor >>>>>>>>>>>>>> edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> move o >>>>>>>>>>>>>> n. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive >>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parties to implement it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> X032The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.docx?dl=0> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edits made: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mundy at tislabs.com Thu Oct 22 16:36:53 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:36:53 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Two Edits to the Executive Summary as Suggested Earlier In-Reply-To: <5628D323.5000908@ripe.net> References: <5628D323.5000908@ripe.net> Message-ID: <407B7CC6-52AD-4978-9D7D-BCC6D2C610CA@tislabs.com> Personally, my preference would be to stay with the current text in X016 since I think the info in the last sentence is important to those that will only read the exec summary. I think the shortening of X017 suggested by Daniel is good. RussM On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Here are two edits to the executive summary I suggested earlier. They > are reflected in "IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy-alc" as > comments. I suggest to strike these words from the executive summary and > to keep them in the proposal proper. These only intent is to remove > detail for clarity and readability. If any of you think this detail is > needed let us keep it and move on. > > Daniel > > ---- > > "X016 Coordination across the operational communities is clearly an > essential component of the Internet's successful development to date and > collaboration is an integral part of the communities’ operational and > policy development processes. In the specific case of the IANA > functions, each community has clearly confirmed to the ICG its ongoing > commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the > situation we have today, where registries from the three communities are > administered by the IANA Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the > operational and policy decisions for where these registries will be > located, and how they will be run, are decentralized." > > I propose to delete the final sentence so that the paragraph reads: > > "X016 Coordination across the operational communities is clearly an > essential component of the Internet's successful development to date and > collaboration is an integral part of the communities’ operational and > policy development processes. In the specific case of the IANA > functions, each community has clearly confirmed to the ICG its ongoing > commitment to cooperation. " > > --- > > "X017 The three proposals together include appropriate and properly > supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA > functions, relying mostly on the right of each operational community to > select a new entity for the performance of the IANA functions." > > I propose to delete the part after the comma so that the paragraph reads: > > "X017 The three proposals together include appropriate and properly > supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA > functions." > > --- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 22 16:37:31 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:37:31 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agendas for Dublin In-Reply-To: <79AD0BDE-013B-4E25-9750-C26732BB705D@cooperw.in> References: <21162BED-0171-4717-A210-B1D982FF576E@cooperw.in> <79AD0BDE-013B-4E25-9750-C26732BB705D@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Updated agenda for tomorrow. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-F2F-7-agenda-v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 66156 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > On Oct 20, 2015, at 5:20 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Updated agendas for Thursday and Friday. Joe is unable to join on Friday so we are starting with the public comment summary document on Thursday. > > Alissa > > >> On Oct 17, 2015, at 10:46 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> Updated based on today’s discussion. >> >> >>> On Oct 17, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> Minor updates attached. >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 12, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>> >>>> Please see attached. Note that each day’s agenda is dependent on what we get done on the previous day and what happens during the ICANN week. We will need to update the Thursday and Friday agendas as the week progresses. >>>> >>>> Please send your feedback. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 22 16:40:43 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:40:43 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] capitalization Message-ID: Jean-Jacques has suggested that we capitalize Names Proposal, Numbers Proposal, and Protocol Parameters Proposal. What do people think of this suggestion? Personally I have an allergy to capital letter overload — this happens often enough in the IETF and I find that minting terms that then must always be capitalized makes documents less readable. Alissa From kdrazek at verisign.com Thu Oct 22 17:01:10 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:01:10 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] capitalization In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think it should be: "Names proposal, Numbering proposal and Protocol Parameters proposal." Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 22, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Jean-Jacques has suggested that we capitalize Names Proposal, Numbers Proposal, and Protocol Parameters Proposal. > > What do people think of this suggestion? > > Personally I have an allergy to capital letter overload — this happens often enough in the IETF and I find that minting terms that then must always be capitalized makes documents less readable. > > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mundy at tislabs.com Thu Oct 22 17:13:39 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:13:39 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] capitalization In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Jean-Jacques has suggested that we capitalize Names Proposal, Numbers Proposal, and Protocol Parameters Proposal. > > What do people think of this suggestion? My personal preference is to go with the capitalization suggested by Jean-Jacques since we are referring to the exact proposals and we probably don’t want to call them by the name that is on each of the respective covers. Russ > > Personally I have an allergy to capital letter overload — this happens often enough in the IETF and I find that minting terms that then must always be capitalized makes documents less readable. > > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 22 17:19:59 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:19:59 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER - Shuttle for 23 Oct, Friday meetings In-Reply-To: <001d01d10cec$1d211ea0$57635be0$@icgsec.asia> References: <001d01d10cec$1d211ea0$57635be0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <003301d10ced$e2a4d210$a7ee7630$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the shuttle information for Friday, 23 Oct below as received from ICANN meetings team. Best Regards, Jennifer ----------- ICANN hotel shuttles will no longer be running tomorrow. Please find below the schedule. ICG / NomCom The Gresham to CCD : 08:00 CCD to The Gresham : 17:30 GNSO Jurys Inn Parnell Street to CCD : 08:00 CCD to Jurys Inn Christchurch : 17:30 ALAC Jurys Inn Christchurch to CCD : 08:00 CCD to Jurys Inn Christchurch : 18:30 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mundy at tislabs.com Thu Oct 22 17:38:25 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:38:25 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] capitalization In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <033EDD37-4DEF-4760-A5E1-3DC574205FB3@tislabs.com> Thanks Keith, I think this is the best suggestion we’ve had so far. RussM On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:01 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote: > I think it should be: > > "Names proposal, Numbering proposal and Protocol Parameters proposal." > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> Jean-Jacques has suggested that we capitalize Names Proposal, Numbers Proposal, and Protocol Parameters Proposal. >> >> What do people think of this suggestion? >> >> Personally I have an allergy to capital letter overload — this happens often enough in the IETF and I find that minting terms that then must always be capitalized makes documents less readable. >> >> Alissa >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mnuduma at yahoo.com Thu Oct 22 22:17:42 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 22:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: Possible In-Reply-To: <5628E828.4080709@oracle.com> References: <5628E828.4080709@oracle.com> Message-ID: <1995073188.1874433.1445552262347.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Clearer now. Thanks Jeo. I support the formulation. Mary Uduma On Thursday, October 22, 2015 2:45 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote: Different forms of language have been used to the same end.  A majority of comments supported...  I chose this construction, because the majority of comments which may have even included other concerns did not bring up jurisdiction and some that did, did not suggest that it precluded moving forward on the transition. On 10/22/2015 7:20 AM, michael niebel wrote: Yes, Joe, it would.  From a systematic point of view: are we positioning also other issues with regard to the question whether they are "considered  as a limiting factor to the consideration of the  proposal" ?  Michael On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:50 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: overall.  Would that word as a modifier to comments address the confusion?  the majority of overall comments... On 10/22/2015 6:47 AM, michael niebel wrote: Agree. Just one question: does the last sentence " The majority of comments .." mean the majority of comments that raised the jurisdiction issue or the overall majority of comments ? Michael On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior wrote: Likewise. Joe's text is accurate and does not predetermine the scope of the discussion on jurisdiction post-transition. Jandyr ________________________________________ De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] em nome de Drazek, Keith [kdrazek at verisign.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2015 8:30 Para: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible I support Joe's proposed jurisdiction language below. It is factual and does not seek to predetermine the scope of discussion post-transition. Keith -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Possible Possible text on Jurisdiction: A number of comments highlighted the issue of Jurisdiction as important.  A minority objected to any transition at all because they perceived that US was relinquishing jurisdiction.  Another minority point of view raised concerns that the jurisdiction was not international or outside of the US.  A number of comments also suggested that CCWG Workstream 2 might be a place to address some of the continued concerns about jurisdiction.    The majority of comments did not find jurisdiction as a limiting factor to the consideration proposal. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 22 23:23:39 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:23:39 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Comments on ICG proposal draft v5 References: <72863DA4-7306-49D5-8A3A-E8D402D30A92@afrinic.net> Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Alan Barrett > Subject: Comments on ICG proposal draft v5 > Date: October 22, 2015 at 11:27:19 PM GMT+1 > To: Alissa Cooper > > Dear Alissa, > > I am unable to post to the ICG list right now. Please could you forward this message. > > Dear ICG members, > > Here are some editorial comments on the ICG proposal draft v5. > > X02: Change “is comprised of” to “is composed of” > > X04: Add comma in “… provided to each of the communities, setting forth these conditions …” > > X06: Add “for names” and comma in “… would become the IANA functions operator for names, in contract with ICANN.” > > X07: Add “for number resources” and comma in “… serve as the IANA Functions Operator for number resources, and perform those services …” > > X09: Add comma after “proposal” in "Under the combined transition proposal, …” > > X27: Add “(for names)” in "While the names proposal calls for the IANA functions operator (for names) to be transferred to the PTI, …” > > X33: Change “recommends to all parties to implement it” to “recommends that all affected parties should implement it”. > > 004: Add comma after “1996” in "In 1996, a process was started …” > > 004: Change “subsequent” to “successor” in "NTIA’s current stewardship responsibilities under a successor contract …” > > 005: Expand “IFO” to “IANA Functions Operator > > 007: Change “is comprised of” to “is composed of” > > 017: Remove parentheses in “IANA Functions Operator for numbering functions” > > 025: Add comma in "Under the combined transition proposal, …” > > 026: Change “the Review Committee” to “its Review Committee” in "The numbers community would use its Review Committee …” > > 052 part 3 (IFR): Add “relating to names” in "The creation of an IFR which is empowered to conduct periodic and special reviews of the IANA functions relating to names.” > > 052 part 4 (CSC): Add “relating to names”, comma, and “to” in “… empowered to monitor the performance of the IANA functions relating to names, and to escalate …” > > 059: Change “is clearly is clearly” to “is clearly” in "the text is clearly defined as placeholder text” > > 069: Proposed replacement for second sentence: "A few commenters were opposed to the proposal because it involves the US government releasing the IANA functions contract, and a similar small number of commenters opposed the proposal on the basis that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction." > > 069: Proposed edit for third sentence: Change “However” to “On the whole”. > > 092: Change “IANA functions operator” to "IANA functions operator for naming functions” > > 098: Change “the NTIA’s process” to “the NTIA’s process for transition of the Root Zone Management functions” > > 1039: My search for incorrect use of “comprised of” found this paragraph, but it’s in the names proposal, not in the ICG’s part, so the ICG probably can’t change “be comprised of” to “be composed of”. > > > Alan Barrett -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Thu Oct 22 23:46:03 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:46:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Some Re-arrangement of Paragraphs X006 -8 for ease of reading. References: <1322177981.1935871.1445557563877.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1322177981.1935871.1445557563877.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>      I wish to suggest the following presentation of sections X006-8 of the Executive Summary for a more friendly reading  for the busy Executive and the uninformed.               Proposal Summary      X006   The  Namesproposal was developed in the Cross Community Working Group to          Developan IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG). The  community proposed to:o  form a new, separate legalentity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), as an affiliate   (subsidiary) of ICANN that would become theIANA functions operator in contract with ICANN. The legal jurisdiction in whichICANN resides is to remain unchanged.o  create  a Customer Standing Committee (CSC)responsible for monitoring the operator’s performance according to thecontractual requirements and service level expectation      o  establish a multistakeholderIANA Function Review process (IFR) to conduct reviews of the performance of thenaming functions.      X007 The Numbers communityproposed that:o  ICANN continue to serve as theIANA Functions Operator and perform those services under a contract with thefive Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).o  contractual Service LevelAgreement (SLA) between the Regional Internet Registries and the IANA NumberingServices Operator and,o  a Review Committee (RC)comprising community representatives from each region to advise the RIRs on theIANA functions operator’s performance and adherence to identified servicelevels. X008  The ProtocolParameters, currently served by ICANN as the IANA registries operator expressedsatisfaction with the subsisting arrangements and proposed:o   that the IANA protocol parameters registryupdates continue to function day-to-day, as they have been doing for the lastdecade or more.  o  to continue to rely on thesystem of agreements, policies, and oversight mechanisms created by the IETF,ICANN, and IAB for the provision of the protocols parameters-related IANAfunction. Mary Uduma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu Oct 22 23:58:27 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:58:27 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG Action Item Inventory In-Reply-To: <47BD3E47-1FF1-44CB-8C65-DDACD4E6603A@LStAmour.org> References: <011301d1075a$b88f5fb0$29ae1f10$@difo.dk> <47BD3E47-1FF1-44CB-8C65-DDACD4E6603A@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <31BDBC34-AB6F-43F6-8A21-4924B05B205F@LStAmour.org> Colleagues, following up on my action item from earlier today, please find attached the cleaned up Action Item inventory - the text is drawn almost exclusively from the submissions from the Operating Communities, with two clarifications in the Names list of items only. The first, Names community had "TBD" listed under Oversight responsibility, and I edited that to "To be determined/driven by CWG - Stewardship". The reason I am proposing this is that both the Numbers and Protocol Parameters include their oversight activities/bodies, and I believe it is an important implementation element. It is also an opportunity to inform broadly on the full roles and responsibilities of the OCs. And, it reinforces the current operating model. Alissa had suggested it might not be necessary, so that is still an open item. The second, concerns an addition I made to the IPR item under Names, to expand on the implementation detail (column XX) in order to make it as complete as the Number and PP communities. Once the ICG gives its approval, this will be posted on the ICG site in order that it can be referenced as a footnote in the final proposal. Best, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG Action Item Inventory - Final.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 13715 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > > please find attached an updated inventory list that includes items from the Names community. Their oversight column is still under discussion and we expect to have more information at the end of the ICANN week. > > When I have that information, I will also edit the Numbers and Protocol Parameters per email exchanges, but did not want to hold this up given everyone's travel plans. > > Best, > Lynn > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Fri Oct 23 02:13:07 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 02:13:07 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - Thurs feedback .. Message-ID: <2b043a3e09f74c9fabb1ac070685c1cf@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> Apologies for the late sending .. Please find attached the public comment summary report based on input received during our f2f meeting on Thurs. October 23rd and as per action item 1 below .. Hope this accurately reflects all feedback received up to 'ccTLD issues' .. Looking forward to continuing our discussions starting 'ICG RFP Criteria'.. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:45 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Day 3: Action Items Dear All, As confirmed by the chairs, please find the action items list from the Day 3 meeting below: 1. Ismail and Alhadeff to incorporate edits on public comment summary document based on input from Day 3's meeting and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list by tonight (Thursday 22 Oct, Dublin local time). 2. St. Amour to revise the implementation action item inventory spreadsheet for publication today (Thursday 22 Oct, Dublin local time). Cooper to add a reference to the published spreadsheet in the form of a footnote in the transition proposal. 3. ICG members to send any line edits to the transition proposal by email to the internal-cg mailing list by 23:59 IST today (Thursday 22, Oct, Dublin local time). 4. Cooper to incorporate edits on the transition proposal based on input from Day 3's meeting and input sent to the internal-cg mailing list (see Action Item 3) for ICG discussion at the Day 4 meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 173590 bytes Desc: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15.docx URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Fri Oct 23 05:27:59 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 01:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - Thurs feedback .. In-Reply-To: <2b043a3e09f74c9fabb1ac070685c1cf@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <2b043a3e09f74c9fabb1ac070685c1cf@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <5629C55F.700@oracle.com> Please find a few more edits in track change mode. 1. Need to remove old slides 2. Inserted a new PTI section. 3. Cleaned up my duplicate section 4. Minor other correction in redline. 5. do we need a conclusion section to close the document? 6. Suggest we insert following note in the intro, could come after my process paragraph: /In preparing this summary of comments we have tried to organize the comments across the various topics which we had set forth in our request for comments. We do this to help better organize the content for the reader while fully recognizing the overlapping nature of the topics and answers will lead to some duplication of comment references. We have tried to limit this where possible by cross-reference, but some duplication was unavoidable./ I think this is needed because in reading the whole document there are areas of duplication. To our credit the duplication has not lead to inconsistency, just different voices on the same topics :-) I will try to dial in but may need to take an earlier car to the airport than I thought.. Joe On 10/22/2015 10:13 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > > Apologies for the late sending .. > > Please find attached the public comment summary report based on input > received during our f2f meeting on Thurs. October 23^rd and as per > action item 1 below .. > > Hope this accurately reflects all feedback received up to ‘ccTLD > issues’ .. > > Looking forward to continuing our discussions starting ‘ICG RFP > Criteria’.. > > Kind Regards > > --Manal > > *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf > Of *Jennifer Chung > *Sent:* Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:45 PM > *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ICG Day 3: Action Items > > Dear All, > > As confirmed by the chairs, please find the action items list from the > Day 3 meeting below: > > 1. Ismail and Alhadeff to incorporate edits on public comment summary > document based on input from Day 3’s meeting and circulate to the > internal-cg mailing list by tonight (Thursday 22 Oct, Dublin local time). > > 2. St. Amour to revise the implementation action item inventory > spreadsheet for publication today (Thursday 22 Oct, Dublin local > time). Cooper to add a reference to the published spreadsheet in the > form of a footnote in the transition proposal. > > 3. ICG members to send any line edits to the transition proposal by > email to the internal-cg mailing list by 23:59 IST today (Thursday 22, > Oct, Dublin local time). > > 4. Cooper to incorporate edits on the transition proposal based on > input from Day 3’s meeting and input sent to the internal-cg mailing > list (see Action Item 3) for ICG discussion at the Day 4 meeting. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15jha.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 153507 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Oct 23 05:33:37 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:33:37 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v6 Message-ID: This version includes the edits discussed yesterday to how we describe the CCWG dependency; the first paragraph on jurisdiction; and the introduction to the implementation items list. It does not yet reflect the suggestions made on list last night by Alan, Mary, Daniel, or the one about capitalization. We will touch on those today. Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/esit1mglsffvvy6/IANA-transition-proposal-v6.docx?dl=0 Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v6.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 964754 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Fri Oct 23 08:05:32 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:05:32 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Comments on ICG proposal draft v5 In-Reply-To: References: <72863DA4-7306-49D5-8A3A-E8D402D30A92@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <5629EA4C.1020604@ripe.net> I have no objectio On 23.10.15 1:23 , Alissa Cooper wrote: > > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *Alan Barrett >... X33: Change “recommends to all parties to implement it” to “recommends >> that all affected parties should implement it”. As the originator of the language: this is an improvement I can live with. Daniel From milton at gatech.edu Fri Oct 23 10:35:33 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:35:33 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] modified RZM language Message-ID: Based on information gained here at the meeting I would propose to replace the following (inaccurate) sentence in paragraph 96 of Part 0: "The CWG understands that those relationships will be defined by a separate and parallel process coordinated by NTIA." I would want to replace it with this, more accurate statement: "ICANN and the NTIA have made it known that prior to the transition those relationships will be worked out through a contract between ICANN and Verisign." Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Fri Oct 23 10:44:08 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:44:08 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] modified RZM language In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499A8F71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I'm good with this clarification from Milton. Keith From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:36 AM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] modified RZM language Based on information gained here at the meeting I would propose to replace the following (inaccurate) sentence in paragraph 96 of Part 0: "The CWG understands that those relationships will be defined by a separate and parallel process coordinated by NTIA." I would want to replace it with this, more accurate statement: "ICANN and the NTIA have made it known that prior to the transition those relationships will be worked out through a contract between ICANN and Verisign." Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Fri Oct 23 10:52:58 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:52:58 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] copy edit fix for para 67 Message-ID: The majority of comments did not find jurisdiction to be a factor limiting their support for the proposal. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Oct 23 10:58:28 2015 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:58:28 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Title page Message-ID: A small suggestion for the title page: In addition to the title and date, and the recently-added document status, could we add the document author? So the entire page would look something like this: Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) DOCUMENT STATUS The names portion of this proposal is conditioned on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms currently under development in the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG). Before sending this proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. October 2015 Alan Barrett From jjs at dyalog.net Fri Oct 23 11:18:39 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:18:39 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Title page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <25189678.143.1445599115061.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> @Alan +1. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alan Barrett" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Vendredi 23 Octobre 2015 11:58:28 Objet: [Internal-cg] Title page A small suggestion for the title page: In addition to the title and date, and the recently-added document status, could we add the document author? So the entire page would look something like this: Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) DOCUMENT STATUS The names portion of this proposal is conditioned on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms currently under development in the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG). Before sending this proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met. October 2015 Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Oct 23 11:39:39 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:39:39 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Re-circulation of Minutes to be approved Message-ID: <016c01d10d87$820ef760$862ce620$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, To refresh your memory and for your convenience, please find the attached minutes from Call 23 and 24 to be approved at the meeting today. Short links to Dropbox below: ICG Call 23: http://icgsec.asia/1RarCLE ICG Call 24: http://icgsec.asia/1ZJ4PMT Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-23-sept-2015-draft-v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 126976 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-8-oct-2015-draft-v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 133120 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Oct 23 11:59:31 2015 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:59:31 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] X009 wording Message-ID: I find the way paragraph X009 jumps right in to “Under the combined proposal …”, without explaining who did the combining, to be confusing. I suggest adding the following text to clarify the process that led to the decision: The numbers and protocol parameters communities have confirmed that they have no objection to ICANN subcontracting their parts of the IANA functions to PTI. Accordingly, the combined proposal places all parts of the IANA functions (names, numbers, and protocol parameters) under PTI. With a small edit to the current opening sentence, the entire paragraph would then read: OLD: Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming functions. The IETF would maintain its existing Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN for the performance of the protocol parameters functions. The RIRs would establish a Service Level Agreement with ICANN for the performance of the numbering functions. ICANN would sub-contract the performance of the protocol parameters and numbering functions to PTI. Each of the three operational communities would maintain independent authority over its own processes for performance review and for considering a change of IANA Functions Operator for the functions within their purview. All three communities have explicitly committed to coordinate with each other and ICANN to ensure the stability and smooth operation of the IANA functions in the event of such a change. NEW(1): The numbers and protocol parameters communities have confirmed that they have no objection to ICANN subcontracting their parts of the IANA functions to PTI. Accordingly, the combined proposal places all parts of the IANA functions (names, numbers, and protocol parameters) under PTI. The administrative staff and related resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally transferred to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming functions. The IETF would maintain its existing Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN for the performance of the protocol parameters functions. The RIRs would establish a Service Level Agreement with ICANN for the performance of the numbering functions. ICANN would sub-contract the performance of the protocol parameters and numbering functions to PTI. Each of the three operational communities would maintain independent authority over its own processes for performance review and for considering a change of IANA Functions Operator for the functions within their purview. All three communities have explicitly committed to coordinate with each other and ICANN to ensure the stability and smooth operation of the IANA functions in the event of such a change. With a larger edit to the current opening sentence (removing any mention of staff), the result could be: NEW(2): The numbers and protocol parameters communities have confirmed that they have no objection to ICANN subcontracting their parts of the IANA functions to PTI. Accordingly, the combined proposal places all parts of the IANA functions (names, numbers, and protocol parameters) under PTI. Appropriate resources would be transferred from ICANN to PTI. ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming functions. The IETF would maintain its existing Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN for the performance of the protocol parameters functions. The RIRs would establish a Service Level Agreement with ICANN for the performance of the numbering functions. ICANN would sub-contract the performance of the protocol parameters and numbering functions to PTI. Each of the three operational communities would maintain independent authority over its own processes for performance review and for considering a change of IANA Functions Operator for the functions within their purview. All three communities have explicitly committed to coordinate with each other and ICANN to ensure the stability and smooth operation of the IANA functions in the event of such a change. Alan Barrett From jari.arkko at piuha.net Fri Oct 23 12:15:14 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:15:14 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Title page In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For this, > DOCUMENT STATUS > > The names portion of this proposal is conditioned > on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms currently > under development in the Cross Community Working > Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG). > Before sending this proposal to the NTIA via the > ICANN Board, the ICG will seek confirmation from > the CWG that its requirements have been met. could we just use the language we already have in the document? For instance, > The names portion of this proposal is conditioned > on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms currently > under development in the Cross Community Working > Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG). > > The numbers and protocol parameters portions of the > proposal are complete, however, and have no > remaining dependencies. Indeed, implementation of > the numbers and protocol parameters proposals has already > been underway for months and can continue without waiting > for the CCWG to complete its work. > > Before sending this proposal to the NTIA via the > ICANN Board, the ICG will seek confirmation from > the CWG that its requirements have been met. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From milton at gatech.edu Fri Oct 23 13:23:01 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:23:01 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Link to ICANN public forum transacript Message-ID: https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/thu-public-forum The actual text transcript is not up there yet, but it will be ("Transcript to be provided.") If you want a textual reference to add to this URL, I would say "Comments of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade in response to questions about the RZM at the ICANN 54 Public Forum, Thursday October 23, 2015. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mundy at tislabs.com Fri Oct 23 14:24:15 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:24:15 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Link to ICANN public forum transacript In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I’d be fine with this as the reference for the paragraph. RussM On Oct 23, 2015, at 2:23 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/thu-public-forum > The actual text transcript is not up there yet, but it will be (“Transcript to be provided.”) > If you want a textual reference to add to this URL, I would say “Comments of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade in response to questions about the RZM at the ICANN 54 Public Forum, Thursday October 23, 2015. > > Dr. Milton L. Mueller > Professor, School of Public Policy > Georgia Institute of Technology > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Oct 23 14:28:57 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:28:57 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <80D8CF29-FFA4-4CC4-9AE6-FBA24DE24A16@piuha.net> References: <2130752.255.1445449102449.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <80D8CF29-FFA4-4CC4-9AE6-FBA24DE24A16@piuha.net> Message-ID: <841C41E0-9A6C-4BC0-A52A-CA6F8EE57D96@cooperw.in> Suggested edit attached. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: status update.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 92583 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:39 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > > >> - sorry, had not seen your proposed change to the title, before sending mine; >> > > no worries. thanks for your edits > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kdrazek at verisign.com Fri Oct 23 14:31:59 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:31:59 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] CCWG Update to the ICG - Dublin Summary Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499ADAF2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> All, Here's a bullet point summary of key CCWG developments in Dublin. Summary: It was a constructive week and the path forward to consensus is now clear. Some challenges and risks exist, but they appear manageable. The current target date for delivery of a proposal to NTIA is late January. Updated timeline is attached. I welcome any additions or clarifications from Kavouss. * Enhancing ICANN Accountability CCWG o Significant progress during the week led to a breakthrough. o The CCWG transitioned away from a "Sole Member" framework. o The CCWG rejected the ICANN Board's "MEM" counter-proposal. o The ICANN Board conceded a red-line position against a Sole Designator enforceability mechanism. o The CCWG and ICANN Board reached consensus on Sole Designator model. o The new timeline points to delivery of a final recommendation to NTIA by late January. o A 30-day public comment period will open in mid-November. o Possible need for an intercessional meeting in mid-January. o Intense work over the next 3 months to meet very aggressive timeline. * Remaining Challenges o Role of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) in the community empowerment mechanism o Resolution of Stress-Test 18 o Transparency enhancements - with the move from Sole Member to Sole Designator enforceability, the requirement for enhanced transparency will be moved from WS-2 to WS-1. Details need to be fleshed out. o Chartering Organization Approval - Six Supporting Organizations (SO) and Advisory Committees (AC) will have to approve on a very compressed and aggressive timeline. Happy to answer any questions. Keith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Potential Timeline.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 68683 bytes Desc: Potential Timeline.pdf URL: From milton at gatech.edu Fri Oct 23 14:35:13 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:35:13 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Proposed RZM text Message-ID: Here is what Keith, Russ and I are proposing The ICG reiterates that a written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party's role needs to be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. For transparency reasons, that agreement should be made available for public review prior to execution. In order to be consistent with the CWG proposal, any post-transition structural changes to that agreement, including any structural change to the roles of the parties, should be subject to consensus-based community review, input and approval. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Fri Oct 23 14:35:14 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:35:14 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Link to ICANN public forum transacript In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8225936.205.1445610912852.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> +1. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Russ Mundy" À: "Milton L Mueller" Cc: "Russ Mundy" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Vendredi 23 Octobre 2015 15:24:15 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Link to ICANN public forum transacript I’d be fine with this as the reference for the paragraph. RussM On Oct 23, 2015, at 2:23 PM, Mueller, Milton L < milton at gatech.edu > wrote: https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/thu-public-forum The actual text transcript is not up there yet, but it will be (“Transcript to be provided.”) If you want a textual reference to add to this URL, I would say “Comments of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade in response to questions about the RZM at the ICANN 54 Public Forum, Thursday October 23, 2015. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Fri Oct 23 14:40:54 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:40:54 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer In-Reply-To: <841C41E0-9A6C-4BC0-A52A-CA6F8EE57D96@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <3381469.218.1445611251910.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Alissa, - fine. - As requested elsewhere, and this applies especially to any communication from ICG, Names, Numbers and Protocol Parameters should be written like this, because they are used here not as common substantives (milk, sugar and tea), but as the short appellation of parts of our community. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Jari Arkko" Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Vendredi 23 Octobre 2015 15:28:57 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft status announcement and front page disclaimer Suggested edit attached. > On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:39 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > > >> - sorry, had not seen your proposed change to the title, before sending mine; >> > > no worries. thanks for your edits > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Fri Oct 23 14:42:10 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:42:10 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Proposed RZM text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <23527465.225.1445611326791.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> This is to confirm my agreement on this draft. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Vendredi 23 Octobre 2015 15:35:13 Objet: [Internal-cg] FW: Proposed RZM text Here is what Keith, Russ and I are proposing The ICG reiterates that a written agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party's role needs to be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract. For transparency reasons, that agreement should be made available for public review prior to execution. In order to be consistent with the CWG proposal, a ny post-transition structural changes to that agreement, including any structural change to the roles of the parties, should be subject to consensus-based community review, input and approval. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From housley at vigilsec.com Fri Oct 23 15:37:31 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:37:31 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs Message-ID: Please review this draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: Russ = = = = = = = = 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, but we do believe that the mission statement must accurately reflect the ICANN organizational scope and structure. 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 yannis at icgsec.asia Fri Oct 23 16:54:28 2015 From: yannis at icgsec.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:54:28 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #7 Day 4 Attendance & Chat Transcript Message-ID: <3A137EC6-B0F8-442C-97FB-5194978C5639@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, Please find the attendance list (below) and chat transcript (attached) for Day 4, 23rd Oct of the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #7: ICG Members Alan Barrett (NRO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Michael Niebel (GAC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Liaisons Kuo-wei Wu (Board Liaison) Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Apologies Hartmut Glaser (ASO) James Bladel (GNSO) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Yannis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG F2F Meeting #7 Day 4 Chat Transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 145651 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Fri Oct 23 17:11:13 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:11:13 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wouldn't it be better to specifically identify what parts of the mission statement are incorrect, or even to suggest ways to fix them? > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ > Housley > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:38 AM > To: ICG Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs > > Please review this draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG > chairs: > > Russ > > = = = = = = = = > > 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, but we do believe that the mission statement must accurately > reflect the ICANN organizational scope and structure. 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 housley at vigilsec.com Fri Oct 23 17:23:23 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:23:23 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <97AF800B-C4A6-4732-A731-0D10C9D9E0E3@vigilsec.com> Milton: I thought about that, but I was reacting to the point made by Keith that the real drafting of bylaws has not really begun yet. So, at this stage, the right thing to do seems to be coordination. Russ On Oct 23, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Wouldn't it be better to specifically identify what parts of the mission statement are incorrect, or even to suggest ways to fix them? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ >> Housley >> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:38 AM >> To: ICG Group >> Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs >> >> Please review this draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG >> chairs: >> >> Russ >> >> = = = = = = = = >> >> 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, but we do believe that the mission statement must accurately >> reflect the ICANN organizational scope and structure. 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 wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Fri Oct 23 18:38:45 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 20:38:45 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWGChairs Message-ID: <9D55E126D434440BB88C351E6E7DB897@WUKPC> Mission and core values revisions were already part of the 2nd CCWG draft (see 159 ff) and changes are suggested. In addition "Development and approval of all necessary changes to ICANN by-laws" are items listed under "Implementation" (V) of the proposal to be completed. For me this letter doesn't make sense unless we specify outstanding items either in terms of content or timing. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Russ Housley Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:23 PM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: ICG Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWGChairs Milton: I thought about that, but I was reacting to the point made by Keith that the real drafting of bylaws has not really begun yet. So, at this stage, the right thing to do seems to be coordination. Russ On Oct 23, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Wouldn't it be better to specifically identify what parts of the mission > statement are incorrect, or even to suggest ways to fix them? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Russ >> Housley >> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:38 AM >> To: ICG Group >> Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG >> Chairs >> >> Please review this draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the >> CCWG >> chairs: >> >> Russ >> >> = = = = = = = = >> >> 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, but we do believe that the mission statement must accurately >> reflect the ICANN organizational scope and structure. 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 milton at gatech.edu Fri Oct 23 19:11:23 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:11:23 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWGChairs In-Reply-To: References: <97AF800B-C4A6-4732-A731-0D10C9D9E0E3@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: Wolf-Ulrich is correct, giving the CCWG an open-ended letter that says "something is wrong" won't be perceived as actionable. I would suggest replacing this text " We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement, but..." with something along the lines of "We think that there is the potential for incompatibilities or conflicts between the mission statement as it now stands and later efforts by the protocols or numbers communities to revise their IFO arrangements." Perhaps the IAB could prepare a memo about what they think needs to be changed and it could accompany our letter. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] > > Mission and core values revisions were already part of the 2nd CCWG draft > (see 159 ff) and changes are suggested. > In addition "Development and approval of all necessary changes to ICANN by- > laws" are items listed under "Implementation" (V) of the proposal to be > completed. > > For me this letter doesn't make sense unless we specify outstanding items > either in terms of content or timing. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > From: Russ Housley > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:23 PM > To: Mueller, Milton L > Cc: ICG Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the > CCWGChairs > > Milton: > > I thought about that, but I was reacting to the point made by Keith that the > real drafting of bylaws has not really begun yet. So, at this stage, the right > thing to do seems to be coordination. > > Russ > > > > On Oct 23, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > > Wouldn't it be better to specifically identify what parts of the > > mission statement are incorrect, or even to suggest ways to fix them? > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf > >> Of Russ Housley > >> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:38 AM > >> To: ICG Group > >> Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG > >> Chairs > >> > >> Please review this draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to > >> the CCWG > >> chairs: > >> > >> Russ > >> > >> = = = = = = = = > >> > >> 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, but we do believe that the > >> mission statement must accurately reflect the ICANN organizational > >> scope and structure. 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 kdrazek at verisign.com Fri Oct 23 19:15:39 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:15:39 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWGChairs In-Reply-To: References: <97AF800B-C4A6-4732-A731-0D10C9D9E0E3@vigilsec.com> , Message-ID: <3F7E88D9-7E2E-4BD8-8307-B486E658B204@verisign.com> Agreed. Or pull in the previously submitted language from the IAB's 2 public comment submissions. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Wolf-Ulrich is correct, giving the CCWG an open-ended letter that says "something is wrong" won't be perceived as actionable. > > I would suggest replacing this text " We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement, but..." with something along the lines of "We think that there is the potential for incompatibilities or conflicts between the mission statement as it now stands and later efforts by the protocols or numbers communities to revise their IFO arrangements." > > Perhaps the IAB could prepare a memo about what they think needs to be changed and it could accompany our letter. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] >> >> Mission and core values revisions were already part of the 2nd CCWG draft >> (see 159 ff) and changes are suggested. >> In addition "Development and approval of all necessary changes to ICANN by- >> laws" are items listed under "Implementation" (V) of the proposal to be >> completed. >> >> For me this letter doesn't make sense unless we specify outstanding items >> either in terms of content or timing. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> From: Russ Housley >> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:23 PM >> To: Mueller, Milton L >> Cc: ICG Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the >> CCWGChairs >> >> Milton: >> >> I thought about that, but I was reacting to the point made by Keith that the >> real drafting of bylaws has not really begun yet. So, at this stage, the right >> thing to do seems to be coordination. >> >> Russ >> >> >> >>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better to specifically identify what parts of the >>> mission statement are incorrect, or even to suggest ways to fix them? >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Russ Housley >>>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:38 AM >>>> To: ICG Group >>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG >>>> Chairs >>>> >>>> Please review this draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to >>>> the CCWG >>>> chairs: >>>> >>>> Russ >>>> >>>> = = = = = = = = >>>> >>>> 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, but we do believe that the >>>> mission statement must accurately reflect the ICANN organizational >>>> scope and structure. 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 manal at tra.gov.eg Fri Oct 23 21:22:39 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 21:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .. Message-ID: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> Dear All .. As promised, please find attached and on Dropbox, red-line and clean versions of the Public Comment Summary Report, incorporating edits discussed at our f2f meeting in Dublin .. Kindly note that the document is still subject to formatting, capitalization, and other consistency checks .. Appreciate your feedback by Thurs. Oct. 29th 23:59 UTC .. Thanks to everyone and safe travels to all who are still in Dublin .. Kind Regards --Manal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 124641 bytes Desc: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 128084 bytes Desc: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits.docx URL: From housley at vigilsec.com Sat Oct 24 10:04:41 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 06:04:41 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs Message-ID: <33DA52F8-6557-4222-959C-E34BBD13D6CF@vigilsec.com> I have updated the draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: Russ = = = = = = = = 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 Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Sat Oct 24 10:59:18 2015 From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:59:18 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs In-Reply-To: <33DA52F8-6557-4222-959C-E34BBD13D6CF@vigilsec.com> References: <33DA52F8-6557-4222-959C-E34BBD13D6CF@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <75D11BB8-A9D3-4CEC-BC4C-78C50CE55E83@t-online.de> Thanks Russ, Two suggestions: 1. "From the ICG point of view..." instead of "The ICG believes that..." 2. "...the mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN with and/or without PTI." I understand separation of PTI being one possibility. Thanks and save travels Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone > Am 24.10.2015 um 11:04 schrieb Russ Housley : > > I have updated the draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: > > Russ > > = = = = = = = = > > 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 pwilson at apnic.net Sat Oct 24 12:04:52 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 22:04:52 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs In-Reply-To: <33DA52F8-6557-4222-959C-E34BBD13D6CF@vigilsec.com> References: <33DA52F8-6557-4222-959C-E34BBD13D6CF@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <7B5E05F5-C318-409C-862F-2E0CF43C9B33@apnic.net> Russ, I support something along these lines. One observation is that there is a certain contradiction here: “We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement” and “the mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI” Paul. On 24 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Russ Housley wrote: > I have updated the draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: > > Russ > > = = = = = = = = > > 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3582 bytes Desc: S/MIME digital signature URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Sat Oct 24 13:47:37 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:47:37 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWGChairs In-Reply-To: <3F7E88D9-7E2E-4BD8-8307-B486E658B204@verisign.com> Message-ID: <1997778.288.1445694453529.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2> Colleagues, I am opposed to any further addition or deletion of the texts we agreed during our final meeting this week. We only agreed that some grammatical or stylistic improvements could be brought, if truly necessary. I kindly request our Chairs to make the ICG abide by the conclusions we reached in Dublin. Thank you. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Keith Drazek" À: "Milton L Mueller" Cc: "ICG Group" Envoyé: Vendredi 23 Octobre 2015 21:15:39 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWGChairs Agreed. Or pull in the previously submitted language from the IAB's 2 public comment submissions. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Wolf-Ulrich is correct, giving the CCWG an open-ended letter that says "something is wrong" won't be perceived as actionable. > > I would suggest replacing this text " We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement, but..." with something along the lines of "We think that there is the potential for incompatibilities or conflicts between the mission statement as it now stands and later efforts by the protocols or numbers communities to revise their IFO arrangements." > > Perhaps the IAB could prepare a memo about what they think needs to be changed and it could accompany our letter. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] >> >> Mission and core values revisions were already part of the 2nd CCWG draft >> (see 159 ff) and changes are suggested. >> In addition "Development and approval of all necessary changes to ICANN by- >> laws" are items listed under "Implementation" (V) of the proposal to be >> completed. >> >> For me this letter doesn't make sense unless we specify outstanding items >> either in terms of content or timing. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> From: Russ Housley >> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:23 PM >> To: Mueller, Milton L >> Cc: ICG Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the >> CCWGChairs >> >> Milton: >> >> I thought about that, but I was reacting to the point made by Keith that the >> real drafting of bylaws has not really begun yet. So, at this stage, the right >> thing to do seems to be coordination. >> >> Russ >> >> >> >>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better to specifically identify what parts of the >>> mission statement are incorrect, or even to suggest ways to fix them? >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Russ Housley >>>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:38 AM >>>> To: ICG Group >>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG >>>> Chairs >>>> >>>> Please review this draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to >>>> the CCWG >>>> chairs: >>>> >>>> Russ >>>> >>>> = = = = = = = = >>>> >>>> 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, but we do believe that the >>>> mission statement must accurately reflect the ICANN organizational >>>> scope and structure. 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 > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Sat Oct 24 13:49:29 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:49:29 +0100 (IST) Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs In-Reply-To: <7B5E05F5-C318-409C-862F-2E0CF43C9B33@apnic.net> Message-ID: <7143405.301.1445694565110.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2> Copy of a message sent on another thread a couple of minutes ago: "Colleagues, I am opposed to any further addition or deletion of the texts we agreed during our final meeting this week. We only agreed that some grammatical or stylistic improvements could be brought, if truly necessary. I kindly request our Chairs to make the ICG abide by the conclusions we reached in Dublin. Thank you. Best regards, Jean-Jacques." ----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" À: "Russ Housley" Cc: "ICG Group" Envoyé: Samedi 24 Octobre 2015 14:04:52 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs Russ, I support something along these lines. One observation is that there is a certain contradiction here: “We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement” and “the mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI” Paul. On 24 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Russ Housley wrote: > I have updated the draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: > > Russ > > = = = = = = = = > > 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kdrazek at verisign.com Sat Oct 24 14:53:15 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:53:15 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs In-Reply-To: <7143405.301.1445694565110.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2> References: <7B5E05F5-C318-409C-862F-2E0CF43C9B33@apnic.net>, <7143405.301.1445694565110.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2> Message-ID: <567D4FAB-B5B4-491B-A133-170E8967473C@verisign.com> I agree Jean-Jacques. However, I believe this draft text is intended for the letter from our Co-Chairs to the CCWG Co-Chairs as agreed yesterday, not the ICG report. Happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken. Best, Keith Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 24, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > Copy of a message sent on another thread a couple of minutes ago: > > "Colleagues, > > I am opposed to any further addition or deletion of the texts we agreed during our final meeting this week. We only agreed that some grammatical or stylistic improvements could be brought, if truly necessary. > > I kindly request our Chairs to make the ICG abide by the conclusions we reached in Dublin. Thank you. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques." > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Paul Wilson" > À: "Russ Housley" > Cc: "ICG Group" > Envoyé: Samedi 24 Octobre 2015 14:04:52 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs > > Russ, I support something along these lines. > > One observation is that there is a certain contradiction here: > > “We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement” > > and > > “the mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI” > > > Paul. > > >> On 24 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Russ Housley wrote: >> >> I have updated the draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: >> >> Russ >> >> = = = = = = = = >> >> 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Sat Oct 24 15:35:13 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 17:35:13 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs In-Reply-To: <567D4FAB-B5B4-491B-A133-170E8967473C@verisign.com> References: <7B5E05F5-C318-409C-862F-2E0CF43C9B33@apnic.net> <7143405.301.1445694565110.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2> <567D4FAB-B5B4-491B-A133-170E8967473C@verisign.com> Message-ID: <2B0F50C2-3E76-4369-A8F6-51CD8950C347@frobbit.se> On 24 Oct 2015, at 16:53, Drazek, Keith wrote: > I agree Jean-Jacques. However, I believe this draft text is intended for the letter from our Co-Chairs to the CCWG Co-Chairs as agreed yesterday, not the ICG report. Happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken. Best, Keith Correct, it is one of the action points from the meeting. That said, of course we should ensure the intent of the letter is what we agreed to in the meeting. Best, Patrik Fältström > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 24, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> >> Copy of a message sent on another thread a couple of minutes ago: >> >> "Colleagues, >> >> I am opposed to any further addition or deletion of the texts we agreed during our final meeting this week. We only agreed that some grammatical or stylistic improvements could be brought, if truly necessary. >> >> I kindly request our Chairs to make the ICG abide by the conclusions we reached in Dublin. Thank you. >> >> Best regards, >> Jean-Jacques." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Paul Wilson" >> À: "Russ Housley" >> Cc: "ICG Group" >> Envoyé: Samedi 24 Octobre 2015 14:04:52 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs >> >> Russ, I support something along these lines. >> >> One observation is that there is a certain contradiction here: >> >> “We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement” >> >> and >> >> “the mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI” >> >> >> Paul. >> >> >>> On 24 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Russ Housley wrote: >>> >>> I have updated the draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: >>> >>> Russ >>> >>> = = = = = = = = >>> >>> 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 >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Sun Oct 25 09:41:24 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:41:24 +0900 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comments on ICG proposal draft v5 In-Reply-To: References: <72863DA4-7306-49D5-8A3A-E8D402D30A92@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <9D6939F5-8C53-459B-81C6-19585093F713@cooperw.in> Hi Alan, One question below: > On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> >> 069: Proposed edit for third sentence: Change “However” to “On the whole”. Para 69 does not contain the word “However” (even in earlier versions we were working off of earlier last week). Could you clarify which specific sentence you wanted to edit? Thanks, Alissa From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 25 12:10:30 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 12:10:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs In-Reply-To: <567D4FAB-B5B4-491B-A133-170E8967473C@verisign.com> Message-ID: <20139538.383.1445775030077.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2> Dear Colleagues, Keith (Drazek), thanks for pointing out that the proposed modifications were intended for a message to the CCWG. As such, I agree with the proposed wording and the improvements suggested by Russ and Paul. I was making a wider point, also made on the other thread, that we should limit ourselves to the linguistic and stylistic improvements agreed upon in our Dublin meeting, for - our Transition Proposal, - and our Summary Report of Comments received (and I've thanked Manal on a separate email for integrating our agreed remarks into the latter). While understanding the substantive suggestions made by colleagues, mostly from the OCs, I must remark that, since the early days of the ICG, we have collectively granted the OCs special attention in the drafting process. This is reflected in the presentation of the Transition Proposal, which even in its final form has 3 separate contributions rather than a synthesis. I consider that the other communities in the ICG have given the OCs adequate space, time and consideration. The resulting Proposal is good, and although it could (perhaps) still be improved, our colleagues from the OCs should now - consider it final, - accept, without reservations, the request I formulated on behalf of the ALAC, and supported by several colleagues (GAC, Civil society), that we remain involved all together in the ICG, as long as our group has not been terminated. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Keith Drazek" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: "Paul Wilson" , "ICG Group" Envoyé: Samedi 24 Octobre 2015 16:53:15 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs I agree Jean-Jacques. However, I believe this draft text is intended for the letter from our Co-Chairs to the CCWG Co-Chairs as agreed yesterday, not the ICG report. Happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken. Best, Keith Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 24, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > Copy of a message sent on another thread a couple of minutes ago: > > "Colleagues, > > I am opposed to any further addition or deletion of the texts we agreed during our final meeting this week. We only agreed that some grammatical or stylistic improvements could be brought, if truly necessary. > > I kindly request our Chairs to make the ICG abide by the conclusions we reached in Dublin. Thank you. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques." > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Paul Wilson" > À: "Russ Housley" > Cc: "ICG Group" > Envoyé: Samedi 24 Octobre 2015 14:04:52 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs > > Russ, I support something along these lines. > > One observation is that there is a certain contradiction here: > > “We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement” > > and > > “the mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI” > > > Paul. > > >> On 24 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Russ Housley wrote: >> >> I have updated the draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: >> >> Russ >> >> = = = = = = = = >> >> 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From housley at vigilsec.com Sun Oct 25 15:08:51 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 11:08:51 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs In-Reply-To: <7143405.301.1445694565110.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2> References: <7143405.301.1445694565110.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2> Message-ID: <600234AF-DCA7-4B50-9253-B941CFA29C89@vigilsec.com> Jean-Jacques: As I believe is very clear from the beginning of my note, in Dublin I was asked to draft a note from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs. This is the proposed text for that note. It is not intended to go into the proposal document. Russ On Oct 24, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Copy of a message sent on another thread a couple of minutes ago: > > "Colleagues, > > I am opposed to any further addition or deletion of the texts we agreed during our final meeting this week. We only agreed that some grammatical or stylistic improvements could be brought, if truly necessary. > > I kindly request our Chairs to make the ICG abide by the conclusions we reached in Dublin. Thank you. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques." > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Paul Wilson" > À: "Russ Housley" > Cc: "ICG Group" > Envoyé: Samedi 24 Octobre 2015 14:04:52 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs > > Russ, I support something along these lines. > > One observation is that there is a certain contradiction here: > > “We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement” > > and > > “the mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI” > > > Paul. > > > On 24 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Russ Housley wrote: > >> I have updated the draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: >> >> Russ >> >> = = = = = = = = >> >> 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From housley at vigilsec.com Sun Oct 25 15:19:06 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 11:19:06 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Re: DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs Message-ID: I have tried to incorporate the comments form the earlier draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: Russ = = = = = = = = 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/. 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 and additional significant impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN. 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 jen at icgsec.asia Sun Oct 25 15:59:49 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 11:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Day 4: Action Items and Decisions Taken Message-ID: <012801d10f3e$2f1d3f90$8d57beb0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Hope everyone had a smooth journey back from Dublin. As confirmed by the chairs, please find the action items and decisions taken from Day 4: Action Items: 1. Cooper to circulate the latest version of the transition proposal to the internal-cg mailing list on Monday, 26 October. ICG members to send any further editorial comments to the proposal within 48 hours. 2. ICG members to review (in conjunction with Action Item 1.) the implementation action item inventory spreadsheet circulated by St. Amour http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-October/002136.html and send any further editorial comments to the internal-cg list by Wednesday, 28 October. 3. ICG members to review the public comment summary document circulated by Ismail http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-October/002164.html and send any further comments to the internal-cg mailing list by Thursday, 29 October. Decisions Taken: (From Day 1) 1. From now until 30 September 2016, the ICG will: (1)keep the internal-cg mailing list active; (2) ensure that the communities have a way to reach the ICG; (3) will only schedule conference calls/meetings on an as-needed basis. The ICG will revisit this decision on or before 30 September 2016. 2. ICG liaisons to the operational communities and ICG liaisons to the CCWG-Accountability to continue their role as liaisons with the respective groups and continue to bring status updates to the ICG as necessary. Best Regards, Jennifer From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Oct 25 17:02:24 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:02:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs In-Reply-To: <600234AF-DCA7-4B50-9253-B941CFA29C89@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <5577082.442.1445792539310.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejejacques2> Noted. Thank you Russ. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Russ Housley" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: "ICG Group" Envoyé: Dimanche 25 Octobre 2015 16:08:51 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs Jean-Jacques: As I believe is very clear from the beginning of my note, in Dublin I was asked to draft a note from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs. This is the proposed text for that note. It is not intended to go into the proposal document. Russ On Oct 24, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Copy of a message sent on another thread a couple of minutes ago: > > "Colleagues, > > I am opposed to any further addition or deletion of the texts we agreed during our final meeting this week. We only agreed that some grammatical or stylistic improvements could be brought, if truly necessary. > > I kindly request our Chairs to make the ICG abide by the conclusions we reached in Dublin. Thank you. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques." > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Paul Wilson" > À: "Russ Housley" > Cc: "ICG Group" > Envoyé: Samedi 24 Octobre 2015 14:04:52 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs > > Russ, I support something along these lines. > > One observation is that there is a certain contradiction here: > > “We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement” > > and > > “the mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI” > > > Paul. > > > On 24 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Russ Housley wrote: > >> I have updated the draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: >> >> Russ >> >> = = = = = = = = >> >> 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sun Oct 25 18:26:06 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:26:06 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWGChairs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6E8D196246C34F398A95A649FE5C9423@WUKPC> Thanks very much Russ, fully agreed! Just a minor typo in the penultimate sentence: "...it will be an additional...” instead “...and...”. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Russ Housley Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 4:19 PM To: ICG Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Re: DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWGChairs I have tried to incorporate the comments form the earlier draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: Russ = = = = = = = = 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/. 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 and additional significant impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Sun Oct 25 19:30:32 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:30:32 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWGChairs In-Reply-To: <6E8D196246C34F398A95A649FE5C9423@WUKPC> References: <6E8D196246C34F398A95A649FE5C9423@WUKPC> Message-ID: Much better --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 2:26 PM To: Russ Housley ; ICG Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWGChairs Thanks very much Russ, fully agreed! Just a minor typo in the penultimate sentence: "...it will be an additional...” instead “...and...”. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Russ Housley Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 4:19 PM To: ICG Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Re: DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWGChairs I have tried to incorporate the comments form the earlier draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs: Russ = = = = = = = = 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/. 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 and additional significant impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Sun Oct 25 19:32:58 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:32:58 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs In-Reply-To: <7B5E05F5-C318-409C-862F-2E0CF43C9B33@apnic.net> References: <33DA52F8-6557-4222-959C-E34BBD13D6CF@vigilsec.com> <7B5E05F5-C318-409C-862F-2E0CF43C9B33@apnic.net> Message-ID: Agree with Paul, which is why I suggested modifying that language in my first reaction. > -----Original Message----- > > One observation is that there is a certain contradiction here: > > “We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement” > > and > > “the mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI” > > > Paul. > > > On 24 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Russ Housley wrote: > > > I have updated the draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the > CCWG chairs: > > > > Russ > > > > = = = = = = = = > > > > 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 > > _________________________________________________________________ > _______ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sun Oct 25 22:39:41 2015 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:39:41 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comments on ICG proposal draft v5 In-Reply-To: <9D6939F5-8C53-459B-81C6-19585093F713@cooperw.in> References: <72863DA4-7306-49D5-8A3A-E8D402D30A92@afrinic.net> <9D6939F5-8C53-459B-81C6-19585093F713@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <91A57411-3470-4FF4-ABBA-7F46C52F476F@afrinic.net> > On 25 Oct 2015, at 09:41, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > One question below: > >> On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> >>> 069: Proposed edit for third sentence: Change “However” to “On the whole”. > > Para 69 does not contain the word “However” (even in earlier versions we were working off of earlier last week). Could you clarify which specific sentence you wanted to edit? Hi Alissa, I have often noticed a difference in paragraph numbers as seen by me (in MacOS “Pages”, or in LibreOffice) and paragraph numbers displayed during meetings. Try looking +/- 5 paragraphs before or after 069. It’s the paragraph about jurisdiction. At the time I made my suggestions, the paragraph in version 5 of the proposal began with the sentence "One issue related to accountability that was raised during the public comment period concerned the legal jurisdiction of ICANN.” My suggestions have been addressed in edits made between version 5 and version 6, so (as I stated during the face to face meeting on Friday) I withdraw my suggested edits to this paragraph. Alan Barrett From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Oct 26 17:18:55 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:18:55 +0900 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review Message-ID: Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. Thanks, Alissa Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1002044 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 943684 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Tue Oct 27 10:01:26 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:01:26 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Alissa, my comments re the clean version: 1. on the front page I’d like to suggest to write the full name of the CWG as it’s done with all the other acronyms (e.g. ICG and CCWG). 2. shouldn’t there be given a hint that text with yellow background is expected to be replaced/removed after the CWG dependency is disappeared? 3. page 6, X018, penultimate line: “...ICG will secure confirmation...”. 4. page 20, 51: same as 3. 5. page 23, 65: same as 3. 6. Coming back to my earlier question re the IANAPLAN proposal (ICG para 3004): “This Internet-Draft will expire on July 10, 2015” is confusing Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 6:18 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. Thanks, Alissa Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. Thanks, Alissa Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Tue Oct 27 15:43:54 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:43:54 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All: I went through this document as quickly as I could. It's in great shape overall. I made some minor edits to the clean version in the attached draft, with tracking turned on. There are a couple of substantive changes I propose which I will discuss here: Para X028 currently says: "All three communities determined that the global customers and partners of the IANA services and their communities of stakeholders are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA functions by the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is not expected to impact that." This gives I think the (false) impression that the proposal just keeps everything the same and the customers didn't want any change. However, all 3 communities also made it clear that they want to be able to choose (or continue to choose) a different IFO should the need arise, a capability which does _not_ currently exist for numbers and names, but which is created by this proposal. Also if the customers wanted no change then why did the proposal create PTI? So on p. 28-9, paragraph 98 I edited the end of paragraph 98 to read: 98 All three communities determined that the global customers and partners of the IANA services, including the gTLD and ccTLD registries and their communities of stakeholders; the RIRs; and the IETF are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA functions by the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is structured such that the PTI will continue to provide the IANA functions to its global customers and partners post-transition in essentially the same manner as ICANN's IANA department does today. In the names community, IANA customers expressed support for a clearer separation between ICANN as policy developer and IANA as implementer, and the PTI separation accomplishes this. Also, the proposal makes it possible for each operational community to choose a different IFO should the need arise, a capability which does not currently exist for numbers and names. Thus the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners should continue to be satisfied after the transition. Also, on p. 30, para 108 implementation list I believe we need to add: * Transfer of the IANA-related intellectual property and domain names to the entity. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:19 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. Thanks, Alissa Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v8-MMedits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 851430 bytes Desc: IANA-transition-proposal-v8-MMedits.docx URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Oct 28 03:02:05 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:02:05 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <727FD2A0-82EF-4B01-BC42-9A4089B1F22A@apnic.net> I can support Milton’s proposed changes. Currently reviewing the document. Paul. On 28 Oct 2015, at 1:43, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > All: > I went through this document as quickly as I could. It's in great > shape overall. I made some minor edits to the clean version in the > attached draft, with tracking turned on. There are a couple of > substantive changes I propose which I will discuss here: > > Para X028 currently says: > > "All three communities determined that the global customers and > partners of the IANA services and their communities of stakeholders > are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA functions by > the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is not expected to > impact that." > > This gives I think the (false) impression that the proposal just keeps > everything the same and the customers didn't want any change. However, > all 3 communities also made it clear that they want to be able to > choose (or continue to choose) a different IFO should the need arise, > a capability which does _not_ currently exist for numbers and names, > but which is created by this proposal. Also if the customers wanted no > change then why did the proposal create PTI? > > So on p. 28-9, paragraph 98 I edited the end of paragraph 98 to read: > > 98 All three communities determined that the global > customers and partners of the IANA services, including the gTLD and > ccTLD registries and their communities of stakeholders; the RIRs; and > the IETF are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA > functions by the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is > structured such that the PTI will continue to provide the IANA > functions to its global customers and partners post-transition in > essentially the same manner as ICANN's IANA department does today. In > the names community, IANA customers expressed support for a clearer > separation between ICANN as policy developer and IANA as implementer, > and the PTI separation accomplishes this. Also, the proposal makes it > possible for each operational community to choose a different IFO > should the need arise, a capability which does not currently exist for > numbers and names. Thus the needs and expectations of the global > customers and partners should continue to be satisfied after the > transition. > > Also, on p. 30, para 108 implementation list I believe we need to add: > > * Transfer of the IANA-related intellectual property and > domain names to the entity. > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:19 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review > > Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal > reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing > and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat > produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for > publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. > > If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the > mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > Dropbox: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 > https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Oct 28 03:10:17 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:10:17 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8096D5C6-14F6-4F27-A23D-7FDBF246E811@apnic.net> On 27 Oct 2015, at 20:01, WUKnoben wrote: > Thanks Alissa, > > my comments re the clean version: > > 1. on the front page I’d like to suggest to write the full name of > the CWG as it’s done with all the other acronyms (e.g. ICG and > CCWG). Agree. > 2. shouldn’t there be given a hint that text with yellow background > is expected to be replaced/removed after the CWG dependency is > disappeared? If that’s the intention, then yes it should be clarified. > 3. page 6, X018, penultimate line: “...ICG will secure > confirmation...”. > 4. page 20, 51: same as 3. > 5. page 23, 65: same as 3. I concede this is as discussed in the meeting, though I personally do not agree. The IGC will seek confirmation, but it is not our choice as to whether we secure it. If we do not secure it, then I find it very hard to believe that we would take no action. Rather I would strongly support the submission of the proposal, with a note that we have NOT (yet) secured this confirmation. If the ICG prefers “secure” then so be it; it is a bridge we can cross (rather than burn) if we come to it. :-) > 6. Coming back to my earlier question re the IANAPLAN proposal (ICG > para 3004): “This Internet-Draft will expire on July 10, 2015” is > confusing I have no opinion as this is part of a community proposal. Paul. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > From: Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 6:18 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review > > Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal > reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing > and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat > produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for > publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. > > If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the > mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > Dropbox: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 > https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal > reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing > and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat > produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for > publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. > > If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the > mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > Dropbox: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Oct 28 03:34:25 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:34:25 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44084654-404E-47B8-A80A-477C815E7791@apnic.net> Here’s a few small changes to the Exec Summary section, in addition to Milton’s. I have one question, about the last sentence in X016, which I really cannot follow. Paul. On 27 Oct 2015, at 3:18, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. > > If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > Dropbox: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 > https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v8-MM-PWedits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 962243 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3582 bytes Desc: S/MIME digital signature URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Oct 28 14:59:18 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:59:18 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: <44084654-404E-47B8-A80A-477C815E7791@apnic.net> References: <44084654-404E-47B8-A80A-477C815E7791@apnic.net> Message-ID: Thanks Alissa and everyone in the secretariat, I also suggested a few minor clarifying edits (keeping to the ICG agreement for truly minimal changes). This is looking very good and is quite clear. Best, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v8-MM-PW-LSAedits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 907371 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:34 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Here’s a few small changes to the Exec Summary section, in addition to Milton’s. > > I have one question, about the last sentence in X016, which I really cannot follow. > > Paul. > > > > On 27 Oct 2015, at 3:18, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. >> >> If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> Dropbox: >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mnuduma at yahoo.com Wed Oct 28 17:12:13 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:12:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <549716711.4542194.1446052333869.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> +1 Lynn, I did 3 minor edits (paragraphs 8 and 109).  Happy to withdraw if considered not  necessary. Mary Uduma On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:02 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Thanks Alissa and everyone in the secretariat, I also suggested a few minor clarifying edits (keeping to the ICG agreement for truly minimal changes). This is looking very good and is quite clear. Best, Lynn On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:34 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Here’s a few small changes to the Exec Summary section, in addition to Milton’s. > > I have one question, about the last sentence in X016, which I really cannot follow. > > Paul. > > > > On 27 Oct 2015, at 3:18, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. >> >> If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> Dropbox: >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net                                           @apnicdg > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy-Mary.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 871480 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Oct 28 20:00:07 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:00:07 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Re para 98 I could agree with Milton. Reading para X028, I don’t get tempted of this kind of interpretation. The text just says that the communities satisfaction with the IANA performance will not be impacted – which to my knowledge is intended. Wolf-Ulrich From: Mueller, Milton L Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:43 PM To: Alissa Cooper ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review All: I went through this document as quickly as I could. It’s in great shape overall. I made some minor edits to the clean version in the attached draft, with tracking turned on. There are a couple of substantive changes I propose which I will discuss here: Para X028 currently says: “All three communities determined that the global customers and partners of the IANA services and their communities of stakeholders are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA functions by the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is not expected to impact that.” This gives I think the (false) impression that the proposal just keeps everything the same and the customers didn’t want any change. However, all 3 communities also made it clear that they want to be able to choose (or continue to choose) a different IFO should the need arise, a capability which does _not_ currently exist for numbers and names, but which is created by this proposal. Also if the customers wanted no change then why did the proposal create PTI? So on p. 28-9, paragraph 98 I edited the end of paragraph 98 to read: 98 All three communities determined that the global customers and partners of the IANA services, including the gTLD and ccTLD registries and their communities of stakeholders; the RIRs; and the IETF are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA functions by the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is structured such that the PTI will continue to provide the IANA functions to its global customers and partners post-transition in essentially the same manner as ICANN’s IANA department does today. In the names community, IANA customers expressed support for a clearer separation between ICANN as policy developer and IANA as implementer, and the PTI separation accomplishes this. Also, the proposal makes it possible for each operational community to choose a different IFO should the need arise, a capability which does not currently exist for numbers and names. Thus the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners should continue to be satisfied after the transition. Also, on p. 30, para 108 implementation list I believe we need to add: • Transfer of the IANA-related intellectual property and domain names to the entity. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:19 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. Thanks, Alissa Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Wed Oct 28 20:16:32 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:16:32 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: <44084654-404E-47B8-A80A-477C815E7791@apnic.net> References: <44084654-404E-47B8-A80A-477C815E7791@apnic.net> Message-ID: Thanks Alissa, secretariat and everyone .. Please find attached a couple of minor comments marked in track changes .. Nothing substantial: - Comment on page 6 para X016 - If ok, same comment applies on page 14 para 27 - Reply to Milton’s comment on page 21 para 56 - Typo on page 24 Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 5:34 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review Here’s a few small changes to the Exec Summary section, in addition to Milton’s. I have one question, about the last sentence in X016, which I really cannot follow. Paul. On 27 Oct 2015, at 3:18, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. > > If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > Dropbox: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 > https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v8-MM-PWedits-MI.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 958574 bytes Desc: IANA-transition-proposal-v8-MM-PWedits-MI.docx URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Wed Oct 28 20:24:26 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:24:26 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .. In-Reply-To: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: A friendly reminder of the below deadline :) !! Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:23 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .. Dear All .. As promised, please find attached and on Dropbox, red-line and clean versions of the Public Comment Summary Report, incorporating edits discussed at our f2f meeting in Dublin .. Kindly note that the document is still subject to formatting, capitalization, and other consistency checks .. Appreciate your feedback by Thurs. Oct. 29th 23:59 UTC .. Thanks to everyone and safe travels to all who are still in Dublin .. Kind Regards --Manal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Oct 28 22:53:08 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:53:08 +0900 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: <549716711.4542194.1446052333869.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <549716711.4542194.1446052333869.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Mary, I do not see any edits from you in the attachment. Could you double-check and re-send or send them in email? Thanks, Alissa > On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:12 AM, Mary Uduma wrote: > > +1 Lynn, > > I did 3 minor edits (paragraphs 8 and 109). Happy to withdraw if considered not necessary. > > Mary Uduma > > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:02 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > > Thanks Alissa and everyone in the secretariat, > > I also suggested a few minor clarifying edits (keeping to the ICG agreement for truly minimal changes). > > This is looking very good and is quite clear. > > Best, > Lynn > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:34 PM, Paul Wilson > wrote: > > > Here’s a few small changes to the Exec Summary section, in addition to Milton’s. > > > > I have one question, about the last sentence in X016, which I really cannot follow. > > > > Paul. > > > > > > > > On 27 Oct 2015, at 3:18, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > >> Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. > >> > >> If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Alissa > >> > >> Dropbox: > >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 > > >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 > > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Thu Oct 29 00:06:29 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:06:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1504829312.4759336.1446077190344.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> I am sorry Alissa, Here. On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:54 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: Hi Mary, I do not see any edits from you in the attachment. Could you double-check and re-send or send them in email? Thanks,Alissa On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:12 AM, Mary Uduma wrote: +1 Lynn, I did 3 minor edits (paragraphs 8 and 109).  Happy to withdraw if considered not  necessary. Mary Uduma On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:02 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Thanks Alissa and everyone in the secretariat, I also suggested a few minor clarifying edits (keeping to the ICG agreement for truly minimal changes). This is looking very good and is quite clear. Best, Lynn On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:34 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Here’s a few small changes to the Exec Summary section, in addition to Milton’s. > > I have one question, about the last sentence in X016, which I really cannot follow. > > Paul. > > > > On 27 Oct 2015, at 3:18, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. >> >> If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> Dropbox: >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net                                           @apnicdg > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v8-MM-PW-LSAedits-MU.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 852806 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Oct 29 07:01:29 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 03:01:29 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D7A3DBA-7A78-4731-BFAA-D08C518B2369@oracle.com> Perhaps to Milton's point, which I think is valid, we could say something like: stakeholder communities have been satisfied with the current operations of IANA and have strived in this process to assure that they can have similar confidence in the transitioned systems? I think we need to avoid the impression that nothing has changed, but should also highlight the continued consistency. I'm not comfortable that I have captured it, but I don't think the current draft captured it either... Joe Sent from my iPad > On Oct 28, 2015, at 4:00 PM, WUKnoben wrote: > > Re para 98 I could agree with Milton. > Reading para X028, I don’t get tempted of this kind of interpretation. The text just says that the communities satisfaction with the IANA performance will not be impacted – which to my knowledge is intended. > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > From: Mueller, Milton L > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:43 PM > To: Alissa Cooper ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review > > All: > I went through this document as quickly as I could. It’s in great shape overall. I made some minor edits to the clean version in the attached draft, with tracking turned on. There are a couple of substantive changes I propose which I will discuss here: > > Para X028 currently says: > > “All three communities determined that the global customers and partners of the IANA services and their communities of stakeholders are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA functions by the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is not expected to impact that.” > > This gives I think the (false) impression that the proposal just keeps everything the same and the customers didn’t want any change. However, all 3 communities also made it clear that they want to be able to choose (or continue to choose) a different IFO should the need arise, a capability which does _not_ currently exist for numbers and names, but which is created by this proposal. Also if the customers wanted no change then why did the proposal create PTI? > > So on p. 28-9, paragraph 98 I edited the end of paragraph 98 to read: > > 98 All three communities determined that the global customers and partners of the IANA services, including the gTLD and ccTLD registries and their communities of stakeholders; the RIRs; and the IETF are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA functions by the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is structured such that the PTI will continue to provide the IANA functions to its global customers and partners post-transition in essentially the same manner as ICANN’s IANA department does today. In the names community, IANA customers expressed support for a clearer separation between ICANN as policy developer and IANA as implementer, and the PTI separation accomplishes this. Also, the proposal makes it possible for each operational community to choose a different IFO should the need arise, a capability which does not currently exist for numbers and names. Thus the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners should continue to be satisfied after the transition. > > Also, on p. 30, para 108 implementation list I believe we need to add: > > • Transfer of the IANA-related intellectual property and domain names to the entity. > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:19 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review > > Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29. > > If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > Dropbox: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0 > https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0 > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Oct 29 07:24:48 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:24:48 +0900 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: <1D7A3DBA-7A78-4731-BFAA-D08C518B2369@oracle.com> References: <1D7A3DBA-7A78-4731-BFAA-D08C518B2369@oracle.com> Message-ID: All, Thanks for your edits. The attached version incorporates them as follows: - Accepted Wolf-Ulrich’s edits. I added a footnote to the IANAPLAN proposal, paragraph 3004, that reads “This draft is being held for publication in the RFC Editor’s queue.” - Accepted most of Milton’s edits, or made the edits with minor modifications. Exceptions: para 50 (language is taken directly from CWG proposal), para 56 (potentially substantive change in the characterization that would require further discussion - agree with Manal that this is accurate as-is). - Accepted Paul’s edits, or made the edits with minor modifications. Re para X016 - I deleted the final sentence. We previously had a comment from Daniel asking if it could be removed, and I also found it vague and that it doesn’t really flow from the previous sentences, even with Lynn’s improvements. - Accepted Lynn’s edits. - Accepted Manal’s edits. - Accepted Mary’s edits. - Joe: I accepted Milton’s edit to para 98, which others seemed to support, so this should resolve the issue you mentioned. Jennifer will produce a clean version for publication on our site today. Thanks all! Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v9.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1003514 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 29 07:55:42 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 03:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: References: <1D7A3DBA-7A78-4731-BFAA-D08C518B2369@oracle.com> Message-ID: <00cd01d1121f$36ea83c0$a4bf8b40$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find attached the a clean version of v9 (pdf) ready and scheduled for publication later today on the ICG web site. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 3:25 AM To: Joseph Alhadeff Cc: Mueller, Milton L ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review All, Thanks for your edits. The attached version incorporates them as follows: - Accepted Wolf-Ulrich’s edits. I added a footnote to the IANAPLAN proposal, paragraph 3004, that reads “This draft is being held for publication in the RFC Editor’s queue.” - Accepted most of Milton’s edits, or made the edits with minor modifications. Exceptions: para 50 (language is taken directly from CWG proposal), para 56 (potentially substantive change in the characterization that would require further discussion - agree with Manal that this is accurate as-is). - Accepted Paul’s edits, or made the edits with minor modifications. Re para X016 - I deleted the final sentence. We previously had a comment from Daniel asking if it could be removed, and I also found it vague and that it doesn’t really flow from the previous sentences, even with Lynn’s improvements. - Accepted Lynn’s edits. - Accepted Manal’s edits. - Accepted Mary’s edits. - Joe: I accepted Milton’s edit to para 98, which others seemed to support, so this should resolve the issue you mentioned. Jennifer will produce a clean version for publication on our site today. Thanks all! Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v9.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2433373 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu Oct 29 12:02:19 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:02:19 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: References: <1D7A3DBA-7A78-4731-BFAA-D08C518B2369@oracle.com> Message-ID: <9561E61B-EDB3-4C6F-880B-57167ADF0E28@LStAmour.org> Alissa, Jennifer, secretariat, thank YOU. Great job everyone. Lynn On Oct 29, 2015, at 3:24 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > All, > > Thanks for your edits. The attached version incorporates them as follows: > > - Accepted Wolf-Ulrich’s edits. I added a footnote to the IANAPLAN proposal, paragraph 3004, that reads “This draft is being held for publication in the RFC Editor’s queue.” > > - Accepted most of Milton’s edits, or made the edits with minor modifications. Exceptions: para 50 (language is taken directly from CWG proposal), para 56 (potentially substantive change in the characterization that would require further discussion - agree with Manal that this is accurate as-is). > > - Accepted Paul’s edits, or made the edits with minor modifications. Re para X016 - I deleted the final sentence. We previously had a comment from Daniel asking if it could be removed, and I also found it vague and that it doesn’t really flow from the previous sentences, even with Lynn’s improvements. > > - Accepted Lynn’s edits. > > - Accepted Manal’s edits. > > - Accepted Mary’s edits. > > - Joe: I accepted Milton’s edit to para 98, which others seemed to support, so this should resolve the issue you mentioned. > > Jennifer will produce a clean version for publication on our site today. > > Thanks all! > Alissa > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 29 13:02:14 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:02:14 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: <00cd01d1121f$36ea83c0$a4bf8b40$@icgsec.asia> References: <1D7A3DBA-7A78-4731-BFAA-D08C518B2369@oracle.com> <00cd01d1121f$36ea83c0$a4bf8b40$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <011d01d1124a$0a245c50$1e6d14f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The following versions of v9 have been uploaded to Dropbox for our records, see attached and short links below: v9-redline (.docx): http://icgsec.asia/1P003qR v9-clean (.docx): http://icgsec.asia/1XBiZh7 v9 (pdf): http://icgsec.asia/1XBjc43 --- this is the published version The announcement details will be sent under separate cover. 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 Jennifer Chung Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 3:56 AM To: 'Alissa Cooper' ; 'Joseph Alhadeff' Cc: 'Mueller, Milton L' ; 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review Dear All, Please find attached the a clean version of v9 (pdf) ready and scheduled for publication later today on the ICG web site. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 3:25 AM To: Joseph Alhadeff Cc: Mueller, Milton L ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review All, Thanks for your edits. The attached version incorporates them as follows: - Accepted Wolf-Ulrich’s edits. I added a footnote to the IANAPLAN proposal, paragraph 3004, that reads “This draft is being held for publication in the RFC Editor’s queue.” - Accepted most of Milton’s edits, or made the edits with minor modifications. Exceptions: para 50 (language is taken directly from CWG proposal), para 56 (potentially substantive change in the characterization that would require further discussion - agree with Manal that this is accurate as-is). - Accepted Paul’s edits, or made the edits with minor modifications. Re para X016 - I deleted the final sentence. We previously had a comment from Daniel asking if it could be removed, and I also found it vague and that it doesn’t really flow from the previous sentences, even with Lynn’s improvements. - Accepted Lynn’s edits. - Accepted Manal’s edits. - Accepted Mary’s edits. - Joe: I accepted Milton’s edit to para 98, which others seemed to support, so this should resolve the issue you mentioned. Jennifer will produce a clean version for publication on our site today. Thanks all! Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v9.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2433373 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v9-clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 851052 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v9-redline.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 895238 bytes Desc: not available URL: From milton at gatech.edu Thu Oct 29 13:04:45 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:04:45 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review In-Reply-To: <1D7A3DBA-7A78-4731-BFAA-D08C518B2369@oracle.com> References: <1D7A3DBA-7A78-4731-BFAA-D08C518B2369@oracle.com> Message-ID: That’s a good way of putting it stakeholder communities have been satisfied with the current operations of IANA and have strived in this process to assure that they can have similar confidence in the transitioned systems -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Oct 29 13:06:05 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:06:05 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public announcement: ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Message-ID: <012701d1124a$9302a900$b907fb00$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please see the latest public announcement and publication of the proposal posted on the ICG web site here: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-completes-its-work-and-awaits-conclusion-of-ccwg- on-enhancing-icann-accountability/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/659714946977161216 FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1710597855835513 Please share with your communities! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu Oct 29 20:34:18 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:34:18 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .. In-Reply-To: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org> 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean LSA.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 132878 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Oct 23, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > Dear All .. > > As promised, please find attached and on Dropbox, red-line and clean versions of the Public Comment Summary Report, incorporating edits discussed at our f2f meeting in Dublin .. > > Kindly note that the document is still subject to formatting, capitalization, and other consistency checks .. > Appreciate your feedback by Thurs. Oct. 29th 23:59 UTC .. > > Thanks to everyone and safe travels to all who are still in Dublin .. > > Kind Regards > --Manal > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From elise.gerich at icann.org Thu Oct 29 22:22:59 2015 From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .. In-Reply-To: <779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org> References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> <779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: Hi Manal, Joe, and Lynn, This looks OK to me. Thanks for all the attention to completing this. -- Elise From: Internal-cg on behalf of "Lynn St.Amour" Date: Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 1:34 PM To: Manal Ismail 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5037 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Oct 30 08:07:00 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 04:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .. In-Reply-To: <779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org> References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> <779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia> 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 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean LSA-format.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 132941 bytes Desc: not available URL: From milton at gatech.edu Fri Oct 30 13:55:56 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:55:56 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .. In-Reply-To: <009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia> References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> <779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org> <009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Looks acceptable to me... --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Jennifer Chung > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 4:07 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 > 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 > From manal at tra.gov.eg Fri Oct 30 20:38:18 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .. In-Reply-To: <009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia> References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> <779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org> <009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <9cbd51b9c8704de88d7d34789ebbbc0c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> 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 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 -------------- 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: 130920 bytes Desc: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean LSA-format-MI.docx URL: