From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep  1 22:28:03 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:28:03 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis
Message-ID: <35C183CD-8221-4A57-AB83-899031BEAE32@cooperw.in>

Hi all,

Mohamed, Patrik and I would like to ask for volunteers who are willing to do an initial review of the public comments received on the transition proposal. Volunteers would need to spend time between September 9 and September 15 reading, analyzing, and summarizing comments and making initial suggestions about what action the ICG should take as a result, if any. Because we expect many comments to arrive just prior to the deadline on September 8, we can’t say right now how much work this will entail. But we’d like to get the names of people who will be available starting mid-next-week for a few days of intensive work to do comment analysis that the full group can review before our F2F meeting.

We will plan to have a coordination call with the volunteers on September 9 around 18:00 UTC to divvy up the work.

Please respond to this note if you’re willing to volunteer.

Thanks,
Alissa

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep  1 22:42:55 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:42:55 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG Position on IANA IPR
References: <00e201d0e4d9$e84ab270$b8e01750$@difo.dk>
Message-ID: <30B1581C-C776-4672-BA1F-692701495D38@cooperw.in>

FYI

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Lise Fuhr" <lise.fuhr at difo.dk>
> Subject: CWG Position on IANA IPR
> Date: September 1, 2015 at 10:16:14 AM PDT
> To: <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: Patrik Fältström <paf at netnod.se>, "Mohamed El Bashir" <mbashir at mbash.net>
> 
> Dear Alissa and ICG Colleagues,
>  
> As you know, the final CWG IANA Stewardship proposal submitted in response to your ICG RFP, contained reference to the IANA IPR, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S. However, given that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the IPR language was in square brackets, it was subsequently clarified with you that the CWG proposal was effectively silent on the IANA IPR. At the time of drafting the Final Proposal, it was the CWG’s intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA IPR, but rather the CWG anticipated that this would be dealt with as part of the detailed work on implementation of the proposal, including the full preparation of a term sheet and a subsequent associated contract.
>  
> Following from the 31 July 2015 publication for public comment of the ICG proposal and some preliminary legal work commissioned by the CWG, it has become apparent that further clarification on the CWG position on the IANA IPR will be helpful. Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its position on the IANA IPR, including referring to the ICG proposal and the three responses to the ICG RFP which form the foundation of that proposal. 
>  
> Accordingly, the CWG hereby formally confirms that its position is consistent with that of the other two respondents to the ICG RFP in that it has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names (iana.org <http://iana.org/>, .com and .net) being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator. For the avoidance of doubt, we view the CWG position as also consistent with the ICANN board statement of 15 August 2015 on the same subject.
>  
> With regard to implementation of the ICG proposal, the CWG expects that, in co-ordination with the other operational communities, the detailed requirements for such an independent entity will be agreed and specified and that the appropriate independent entity will then be created or selected (and adapted if necessary) such that it can meet the detailed requirements and that this work will take place within the currently contemplated timelines.
>  
> Thank-you for your attention to this matter.
>  
> Yours sincerely,
>  
>  
> Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson
> IANA CWG Stewardship Co-chairs
> For and on behalf of the CWG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150901/2ef59288/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Sep  2 02:09:15 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:09:15 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] New social media posts from the ICG about the public
	comment period
Message-ID: <009601d0e524$5f0e9940$1d2bcbc0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the latest tweets from the ICG reminding all that there is 1
week left to submit their comments on the transition proposal.

 

FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1695349837360315

 

Twitter:

EN: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/638892127141908480 

FR: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/638892183035211777 

ES: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/638892225510928384 

ZH: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/638892585973628932 

PT: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/638892620316590080 

AR: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/638893408023658496 

RU: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/638893730368495616 

 

Please share with your communities!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150901/ad5c1e54/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Wed Sep  2 07:08:41 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 09:08:41 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?Volunteers_for_comment_analysis?=
Message-ID: <20150902070234.7F15B1C1490@smtp.notifymdm.com>

Alissa I can do some work but have 2 day board meeting at the end of next week so may only be a partial commitment.

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

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

From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
Received: Wednesday, 02 Sep 2015, 12:28AM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis

Hi all,

Mohamed, Patrik and I would like to ask for volunteers who are willing to do an initial review of the public comments received on the transition proposal. Volunteers would need to spend time between September 9 and September 15 reading, analyzing, and summarizing comments and making initial suggestions about what action the ICG should take as a result, if any. Because we expect many comments to arrive just prior to the deadline on September 8, we can’t say right now how much work this will entail. But we’d like to get the names of people who will be available starting mid-next-week for a few days of intensive work to do comment analysis that the full group can review before our F2F meeting.

We will plan to have a coordination call with the volunteers on September 9 around 18:00 UTC to divvy up the work.

Please respond to this note if you’re willing to volunteer.

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

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Sep  2 07:36:14 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 07:36:14 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis
In-Reply-To: <35C183CD-8221-4A57-AB83-899031BEAE32@cooperw.in>
References: <35C183CD-8221-4A57-AB83-899031BEAE32@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B2084D@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Hi Alissa,

I am willing (and, at the moment, likely to be available) to put in some work on this in the time slot identified.

For transparency, I'd note that I expect my employer to put in a response, so I will need to have some distance on this one.

Best

Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: 01 September 2015 23:28
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis

Hi all,

Mohamed, Patrik and I would like to ask for volunteers who are willing to do an initial review of the public comments received on the transition proposal. Volunteers would need to spend time between September 9 and September 15 reading, analyzing, and summarizing comments and making initial suggestions about what action the ICG should take as a result, if any. Because we expect many comments to arrive just prior to the deadline on September 8, we can’t say right now how much work this will entail. But we’d like to get the names of people who will be available starting mid-next-week for a few days of intensive work to do comment analysis that the full group can review before our F2F meeting.

We will plan to have a coordination call with the volunteers on September 9 around 18:00 UTC to divvy up the work.

Please respond to this note if you’re willing to volunteer.

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

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Sep  2 14:01:26 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:01:26 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis
In-Reply-To: <35C183CD-8221-4A57-AB83-899031BEAE32@cooperw.in>
References: <35C183CD-8221-4A57-AB83-899031BEAE32@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <E814B1284D8E41F6A88E4EC819742501@WUKPC>

Good idea!
I'm willing to volunteer. Will the secretariat prepare a kind of "PC matrix" 
showing questions, main substance of the related comment and the commenting 
person/entity (or things similar to those)?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Alissa Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 12:28 AM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis

Hi all,

Mohamed, Patrik and I would like to ask for volunteers who are willing to do 
an initial review of the public comments received on the transition 
proposal. Volunteers would need to spend time between September 9 and 
September 15 reading, analyzing, and summarizing comments and making initial 
suggestions about what action the ICG should take as a result, if any. 
Because we expect many comments to arrive just prior to the deadline on 
September 8, we can’t say right now how much work this will entail. But we’d 
like to get the names of people who will be available starting mid-next-week 
for a few days of intensive work to do comment analysis that the full group 
can review before our F2F meeting.

We will plan to have a coordination call with the volunteers on September 9 
around 18:00 UTC to divvy up the work.

Please respond to this note if you’re willing to volunteer.

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  Wed Sep  2 14:42:02 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:42:02 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis
In-Reply-To: <35C183CD-8221-4A57-AB83-899031BEAE32@cooperw.in>
References: <35C183CD-8221-4A57-AB83-899031BEAE32@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB58917CB671F95589DFB989AAC690@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Alissa:
I can volunteer to take a chunk of the comments. I have a class on the 9th and some meetings on the 10th but starting afternoon of the 10th and through the weekend should be relatively free. 

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 6:28 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Mohamed, Patrik and I would like to ask for volunteers who are willing to do
> an initial review of the public comments received on the transition proposal.
> Volunteers would need to spend time between September 9 and
> September 15 reading, analyzing, and summarizing comments and making
> initial suggestions about what action the ICG should take as a result, if any.
> Because we expect many comments to arrive just prior to the deadline on
> September 8, we can’t say right now how much work this will entail. But we’d
> like to get the names of people who will be available starting mid-next-week
> for a few days of intensive work to do comment analysis that the full group
> can review before our F2F meeting.
> 
> We will plan to have a coordination call with the volunteers on September 9
> around 18:00 UTC to divvy up the work.
> 
> Please respond to this note if you’re willing to volunteer.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Sep  2 22:23:40 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 18:23:40 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis
In-Reply-To: <E814B1284D8E41F6A88E4EC819742501@WUKPC>
References: <35C183CD-8221-4A57-AB83-899031BEAE32@cooperw.in>
	<E814B1284D8E41F6A88E4EC819742501@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <027e01d0e5ce$061900f0$124b02d0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all,

The Secretariat has been and will continue to compile a matrix for the public comments received.  The most up-to-date version will be circulated shortly under separate cover.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 10:01 AM
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>; IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis

Good idea!
I'm willing to volunteer. Will the secretariat prepare a kind of "PC matrix" 
showing questions, main substance of the related comment and the commenting person/entity (or things similar to those)?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Alissa Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 12:28 AM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis

Hi all,

Mohamed, Patrik and I would like to ask for volunteers who are willing to do an initial review of the public comments received on the transition proposal. Volunteers would need to spend time between September 9 and September 15 reading, analyzing, and summarizing comments and making initial suggestions about what action the ICG should take as a result, if any. 
Because we expect many comments to arrive just prior to the deadline on September 8, we can’t say right now how much work this will entail. But we’d like to get the names of people who will be available starting mid-next-week for a few days of intensive work to do comment analysis that the full group can review before our F2F meeting.

We will plan to have a coordination call with the volunteers on September 9 around 18:00 UTC to divvy up the work.

Please respond to this note if you’re willing to volunteer.

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  Wed Sep  2 22:30:26 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 18:30:26 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update
Message-ID: <028401d0e5ce$f822fa90$e868efb0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear ICG members,

 

Attached and linked below, please find the latest draft of the public
comment matrix.

 

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1PMcgfy

 

This matrix contains all the public comments (31*) received to-date,
separated by questions as well as a few topic tabs.  You may navigate to
each sheet using the labeled tabs at the bottom of your screen.  Please note
that some comments are lengthy - to view the entire content of the cell, you
may have to double click then scroll.  In addition, tabs may contain
excerpts from answers to other questions. The full submission for each
submitter is available for download (.pdf) on the archive here:

https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-
public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ .

 

The secretariat will be compiling and updating this matrix during the public
comment period.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions, suggestions, and edits.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

*N.B. Please note that submission 26 has been withdrawn by request of the
commenter.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150902/f7349ed4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-v1-20150902.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 80544 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150902/f7349ed4/attachment.xlsx>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Thu Sep  3 01:33:29 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:33:29 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis
In-Reply-To: <35C183CD-8221-4A57-AB83-899031BEAE32@cooperw.in>
References: <35C183CD-8221-4A57-AB83-899031BEAE32@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <754BE1C4-C7A4-4DE1-857E-C50374E390DB@LStAmour.org>

Hi Alissa,

I will have some time available during this period and am happy to volunteer.

Best,
Lynn

On Sep 1, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Mohamed, Patrik and I would like to ask for volunteers who are willing to do an initial review of the public comments received on the transition proposal. Volunteers would need to spend time between September 9 and September 15 reading, analyzing, and summarizing comments and making initial suggestions about what action the ICG should take as a result, if any. Because we expect many comments to arrive just prior to the deadline on September 8, we can’t say right now how much work this will entail. But we’d like to get the names of people who will be available starting mid-next-week for a few days of intensive work to do comment analysis that the full group can review before our F2F meeting.
> 
> We will plan to have a coordination call with the volunteers on September 9 around 18:00 UTC to divvy up the work.
> 
> Please respond to this note if you’re willing to volunteer.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From jjs at dyalog.net  Thu Sep  3 07:52:36 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:52:36 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis
In-Reply-To: <754BE1C4-C7A4-4DE1-857E-C50374E390DB@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <6790305.226.1441266754764.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Hi Alissa,

having read most of them so far, I'm willing to join others in analyzing the comments received.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.






----- Mail original -----
De: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>
À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 3 Septembre 2015 03:33:29
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Volunteers for comment analysis

Hi Alissa,

I will have some time available during this period and am happy to volunteer.

Best,
Lynn

On Sep 1, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Mohamed, Patrik and I would like to ask for volunteers who are willing to do an initial review of the public comments received on the transition proposal. Volunteers would need to spend time between September 9 and September 15 reading, analyzing, and summarizing comments and making initial suggestions about what action the ICG should take as a result, if any. Because we expect many comments to arrive just prior to the deadline on September 8, we can’t say right now how much work this will entail. But we’d like to get the names of people who will be available starting mid-next-week for a few days of intensive work to do comment analysis that the full group can review before our F2F meeting.
> 
> We will plan to have a coordination call with the volunteers on September 9 around 18:00 UTC to divvy up the work.
> 
> Please respond to this note if you’re willing to volunteer.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


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


From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Thu Sep  3 09:26:28 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:26:28 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update
In-Reply-To: <028401d0e5ce$f822fa90$e868efb0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <028401d0e5ce$f822fa90$e868efb0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B22272@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Hi Jennifer,

Thanks for all this work on the matrix:  it is really helpful to have the information sorted like this and in one document, in one place.

For the more wordy entries - and as we get nearer to the deadline we are likely to see a lot of quite detailed analyses - the limitations of Excel are showing!  It is hard to read the whole text for a number of the entries.

Would it be possible (and more reader friendly) to put the material into a word-processor table?  That way all the material would be visible on screen and easily scrollable?  Or are my limited Excel skills showing?

Thanks

Martin

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: 02 September 2015 23:30
To: 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group'
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update

Dear ICG members,

Attached and linked below, please find the latest draft of the public comment matrix.

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1PMcgfy

This matrix contains all the public comments (31*) received to-date, separated by questions as well as a few topic tabs.  You may navigate to each sheet using the labeled tabs at the bottom of your screen.  Please note that some comments are lengthy - to view the entire content of the cell, you may have to double click then scroll.  In addition, tabs may contain excerpts from answers to other questions. The full submission for each submitter is available for download (.pdf) on the archive here:
https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ .

The secretariat will be compiling and updating this matrix during the public comment period.

Please let me know if you have any questions, suggestions, and edits.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

*N.B. Please note that submission 26 has been withdrawn by request of the commenter.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150903/6fd28d48/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Sep  3 19:51:51 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 15:51:51 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B22272@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <028401d0e5ce$f822fa90$e868efb0$@icgsec.asia>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B22272@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <00f701d0e681$fb4a3ae0$f1deb0a0$@icgsec.asia>

Hi Martin and all,

 

Absolutely - I can convert and reformat the Excel spreadsheets into a word
document.  Excel does have a row height limit that makes lengthy comments
more difficult to read (you have to double click on the cell, then scroll
down).  Excel also has a cell character limit as well - which we may hit
once we receive longer comments.

 

I'll go ahead and maintain both versions, and will upload and circulate the
word version as soon as it is available.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 5:26 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group'
<internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update

 

Hi Jennifer,

 

Thanks for all this work on the matrix:  it is really helpful to have the
information sorted like this and in one document, in one place.

 

For the more wordy entries - and as we get nearer to the deadline we are
likely to see a lot of quite detailed analyses - the limitations of Excel
are showing!  It is hard to read the whole text for a number of the entries.

 

Would it be possible (and more reader friendly) to put the material into a
word-processor table?  That way all the material would be visible on screen
and easily scrollable?  Or are my limited Excel skills showing?

 

Thanks

 

Martin

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Jennifer Chung
Sent: 02 September 2015 23:30
To: 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group'
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update

 

Dear ICG members,

 

Attached and linked below, please find the latest draft of the public
comment matrix.

 

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1PMcgfy

 

This matrix contains all the public comments (31*) received to-date,
separated by questions as well as a few topic tabs.  You may navigate to
each sheet using the labeled tabs at the bottom of your screen.  Please note
that some comments are lengthy - to view the entire content of the cell, you
may have to double click then scroll.  In addition, tabs may contain
excerpts from answers to other questions. The full submission for each
submitter is available for download (.pdf) on the archive here:

https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-
public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ .

 

The secretariat will be compiling and updating this matrix during the public
comment period.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions, suggestions, and edits.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

*N.B. Please note that submission 26 has been withdrawn by request of the
commenter.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150903/8c38b40f/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Sep  4 03:18:28 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 23:18:28 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update
Message-ID: <016401d0e6c0$5fc17e50$1f447af0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the updated excel and word version of the public comment matrix
attached and linked below:

 

Dropbox link word: http://icgsec.asia/1FmkCVK 

Dropbox link excel: http://icgsec.asia/1hZIfyt 

 

These versions contain the latest received comments (33).  Each full
submission is also linked on the submitter information page/spreadsheet -
click on the submission ID and it will bring you to the full submission pdf.
In the word document, you may open up the navigation panel and jump to the
question/topic you wish to view.

 

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, September 3, 2015 3:52 PM
To: 'Martin Boyle' <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>; 'IANA etc etc Coordination
Group' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update

 

Hi Martin and all,

 

Absolutely - I can convert and reformat the Excel spreadsheets into a word
document.  Excel does have a row height limit that makes lengthy comments
more difficult to read (you have to double click on the cell, then scroll
down).  Excel also has a cell character limit as well - which we may hit
once we receive longer comments.

 

I'll go ahead and maintain both versions, and will upload and circulate the
word version as soon as it is available.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 5:26 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> >; 'IANA etc
etc Coordination Group' <internal-cg at ianacg.org
<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org> >
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update

 

Hi Jennifer,

 

Thanks for all this work on the matrix:  it is really helpful to have the
information sorted like this and in one document, in one place.

 

For the more wordy entries - and as we get nearer to the deadline we are
likely to see a lot of quite detailed analyses - the limitations of Excel
are showing!  It is hard to read the whole text for a number of the entries.

 

Would it be possible (and more reader friendly) to put the material into a
word-processor table?  That way all the material would be visible on screen
and easily scrollable?  Or are my limited Excel skills showing?

 

Thanks

 

Martin

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Jennifer Chung
Sent: 02 September 2015 23:30
To: 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group'
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update

 

Dear ICG members,

 

Attached and linked below, please find the latest draft of the public
comment matrix.

 

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1PMcgfy

 

This matrix contains all the public comments (31*) received to-date,
separated by questions as well as a few topic tabs.  You may navigate to
each sheet using the labeled tabs at the bottom of your screen.  Please note
that some comments are lengthy - to view the entire content of the cell, you
may have to double click then scroll.  In addition, tabs may contain
excerpts from answers to other questions. The full submission for each
submitter is available for download (.pdf) on the archive here:

https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-
public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ .

 

The secretariat will be compiling and updating this matrix during the public
comment period.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions, suggestions, and edits.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

*N.B. Please note that submission 26 has been withdrawn by request of the
commenter.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150903/b437b88f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-v1-20150903.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 93765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150903/b437b88f/attachment.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-v1-20150903.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 195705 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150903/b437b88f/attachment.docx>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Fri Sep  4 06:41:23 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 06:41:23 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update
In-Reply-To: <00f701d0e681$fb4a3ae0$f1deb0a0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <028401d0e5ce$f822fa90$e868efb0$@icgsec.asia>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B22272@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>,
	<00f701d0e681$fb4a3ae0$f1deb0a0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <A77E29B9-AE44-492A-B757-6B2B439AF98B@nominet.org.uk>

Thanks Jennifer for taking the trouble of all this extra work - it's greatly appreciated.

And I have some consolation that it's a limitation of the software and not just of this particular reader!

Thanks

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 3 Sep 2015, at 20:52, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>> wrote:

Hi Martin and all,

Absolutely – I can convert and reformat the Excel spreadsheets into a word document.  Excel does have a row height limit that makes lengthy comments more difficult to read (you have to double click on the cell, then scroll down).  Excel also has a cell character limit as well – which we may hit once we receive longer comments.

I’ll go ahead and maintain both versions, and will upload and circulate the word version as soon as it is available.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 5:26 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>; 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group' <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update

Hi Jennifer,

Thanks for all this work on the matrix:  it is really helpful to have the information sorted like this and in one document, in one place.

For the more wordy entries – and as we get nearer to the deadline we are likely to see a lot of quite detailed analyses – the limitations of Excel are showing!  It is hard to read the whole text for a number of the entries.

Would it be possible (and more reader friendly) to put the material into a word-processor table?  That way all the material would be visible on screen and easily scrollable?  Or are my limited Excel skills showing?

Thanks

Martin

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: 02 September 2015 23:30
To: 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group'
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - update

Dear ICG members,

Attached and linked below, please find the latest draft of the public comment matrix.

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1PMcgfy

This matrix contains all the public comments (31*) received to-date, separated by questions as well as a few topic tabs.  You may navigate to each sheet using the labeled tabs at the bottom of your screen.  Please note that some comments are lengthy - to view the entire content of the cell, you may have to double click then scroll.  In addition, tabs may contain excerpts from answers to other questions. The full submission for each submitter is available for download (.pdf) on the archive here:
https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ .

The secretariat will be compiling and updating this matrix during the public comment period.

Please let me know if you have any questions, suggestions, and edits.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

*N.B. Please note that submission 26 has been withdrawn by request of the commenter.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150904/dd49b34e/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Sep  4 14:36:26 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:36:26 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] New social media posts from the ICG - reminder re end
	of public comment period
Message-ID: <021501d0e71f$158ed8f0$40ac8ad0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the latest social media posts from the ICG reminding people to
submit their comments:

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/639807999154987008 

FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1696119577283341

 

Please share with your communities!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150904/804887b4/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Fri Sep  4 17:50:49 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:50:49 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for call #22 - Sept 10
Message-ID: <89D3B21A-718A-47A1-80D0-5373F3A03CBF@cooperw.in>

Here’s a proposed agenda for our upcoming call on Sept 10, 5:00-6:30 UTC:

1) Public comments
- Plan for analysis
- Discussion of initial impressions

2) Logistics for Sept 18-19 F2F

From jen at icgsec.asia  Mon Sep  7 12:35:06 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:35:06 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] New social media posts from the ICG
Message-ID: <00e401d0e969$a187e4e0$e497aea0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Here are the new social media posts from the ICG reminding people that the
public comment period ends tomorrow:

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/640863137869205504 

FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1697009733860992 

 

Please share with your communities!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150907/bd8e2974/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Sep  8 00:37:22 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:37:22 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix update
Message-ID: <011401d0e9ce$88253920$986fab60$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Attached and linked below is the updated public comment matrix that includes
all confirmed comments received up until 7 September 23:59 UTC. 

 

Dropbox link for word: http://icgsec.asia/1K2mSm8 

Dropbox link for excel: http://icgsec.asia/1NeBIes 

 

Please note that there are unconfirmed comments.  When reminding your
communities to submit comments, please also mention that they must action
the confirmation link before it will be published and posted to the archive
here:
https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-
public-archive-of-submitted-comments/.  The confirmation link is used to
filter out spam emails received.  Multiple reminders (both automated and
manual) have been sent by the Secretariat to those submitters with
unconfirmed comments to ask for consent to publish.

 

There is less than one day left to submit public comments - we have received
49* comments so far (*a total of 48, comment 26 withdrawn by request from
the submitter).

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150907/86a93277/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-v1-20150907.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 273575 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150907/86a93277/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-v1-20150907.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 120979 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150907/86a93277/attachment.xlsx>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep  8 19:35:36 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 12:35:36 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
Message-ID: <CB23B645-9851-4FAE-A7B6-F96FBEEFA853@cooperw.in>

The secretariat has received some questions about whether we will accept late comment submissions. We will be posting this to the public comment site:

"The deadline for submitting comments is September 8 at 23:59 UTC. The ICG cannot commit to addressing any comments received after the deadline. If your final comment is not prepared to be submitted before the deadline, we suggest that you submit what you can before the deadline so that the ICG at least gets a sense of the direction of your comments."

From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Sep  8 19:47:05 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:47:05 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] New social media post and web site message about the
	public comment period deadline
Message-ID: <02ff01d0ea6f$250e2da0$6f2a88e0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please see the message below, posted on the ICG social media accounts and
also on comments.ianacg.org

 

"The deadline for submitting comments is September 8 at 23:59 UTC. The ICG
cannot commit to addressing any comments received after the deadline. If
your final comment is not prepared to be submitted before the deadline, we
suggest that you submit what you can before the deadline so that the ICG at
least gets a sense of the direction of your comments."

 

Web page: https://comments.ianacg.org 

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/641335226317340672 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1697378743824091 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150908/6c0bd3bd/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Tue Sep  8 19:52:42 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 21:52:42 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
In-Reply-To: <CB23B645-9851-4FAE-A7B6-F96FBEEFA853@cooperw.in>
References: <CB23B645-9851-4FAE-A7B6-F96FBEEFA853@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <CF8ADDCB044042BBB7207AA2210397C8@WUKPC>

Alissa,

I agree that the public comment period is formally going to be closed that date and people should take it into consideration. However it may be possible for the team to address comments coming in short after the deadline - which in many cases happened already at ICANN. So I'm inclined to slightly soften the text to be posted in the following way:
...The ICG cannot commit guarantee to addressing any comments received after the deadline.

Let’s discuss the status at the call tomorrow.

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Alissa Cooper 
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:35 PM 
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group 
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments 

The secretariat has received some questions about whether we will accept late comment submissions. We will be posting this to the public comment site:

"The deadline for submitting comments is September 8 at 23:59 UTC. The ICG cannot commit to addressing any comments received after the deadline. If your final comment is not prepared to be submitted before the deadline, we suggest that you submit what you can before the deadline so that the ICG at least gets a sense of the direction of your comments."
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150908/360c5270/attachment.html>

From mundy at tislabs.com  Tue Sep  8 19:56:14 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:56:14 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
In-Reply-To: <CB23B645-9851-4FAE-A7B6-F96FBEEFA853@cooperw.in>
References: <CB23B645-9851-4FAE-A7B6-F96FBEEFA853@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <D8A2B6DB-33AA-4376-8329-B7BF578D2914@tislabs.com>

FWIW, I think that this is a very positive way to handle these late response questions.

RussM

On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:35 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> The secretariat has received some questions about whether we will accept late comment submissions. We will be posting this to the public comment site:
> 
> "The deadline for submitting comments is September 8 at 23:59 UTC. The ICG cannot commit to addressing any comments received after the deadline. If your final comment is not prepared to be submitted before the deadline, we suggest that you submit what you can before the deadline so that the ICG at least gets a sense of the direction of your comments."
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Sep  8 19:58:57 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:58:57 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
In-Reply-To: <D8A2B6DB-33AA-4376-8329-B7BF578D2914@tislabs.com>
References: <CB23B645-9851-4FAE-A7B6-F96FBEEFA853@cooperw.in>
	<D8A2B6DB-33AA-4376-8329-B7BF578D2914@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <55EF3E01.3040901@oracle.com>

fine with softer version of non-committal (guarantee vs commit) , but 
agree on benefit of providing comment direction even if not all details 
by submission deadline.

On 9/8/2015 3:56 PM, Russ Mundy wrote:
> FWIW, I think that this is a very positive way to handle these late response questions.
>
> RussM
>
> On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:35 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
>> The secretariat has received some questions about whether we will accept late comment submissions. We will be posting this to the public comment site:
>>
>> "The deadline for submitting comments is September 8 at 23:59 UTC. The ICG cannot commit to addressing any comments received after the deadline. If your final comment is not prepared to be submitted before the deadline, we suggest that you submit what you can before the deadline so that the ICG at least gets a sense of the direction of your comments."
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Sep  8 20:00:28 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:00:28 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
In-Reply-To: <CF8ADDCB044042BBB7207AA2210397C8@WUKPC>
References: <CB23B645-9851-4FAE-A7B6-F96FBEEFA853@cooperw.in>
	<CF8ADDCB044042BBB7207AA2210397C8@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <560F6785-7B11-4D66-8A80-BBF459670FD7@cooperw.in>

Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. We did indeed leave the possibility open that we would be able to process late comments. The language has already been posted to our site and sent out on social media so I think we need to leave it as-is — both formulations give us some flexibility I think.

Alissa

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:52 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> Alissa,
>  
> I agree that the public comment period is formally going to be closed that date and people should take it into consideration. However it may be possible for the team to address comments coming in short after the deadline - which in many cases happened already at ICANN. So I'm inclined to slightly soften the text to be posted in the following way:
> ...The ICG cannot commit guarantee to addressing any comments received after the deadline.
>  
> Let’s discuss the status at the call tomorrow.
>  
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:35 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
>  
> The secretariat has received some questions about whether we will accept late comment submissions. We will be posting this to the public comment site:
>  
> "The deadline for submitting comments is September 8 at 23:59 UTC. The ICG cannot commit to addressing any comments received after the deadline. If your final comment is not prepared to be submitted before the deadline, we suggest that you submit what you can before the deadline so that the ICG at least gets a sense of the direction of your comments."
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150908/11f441d9/attachment.html>

From fmniebel at gmail.com  Tue Sep  8 20:05:06 2015
From: fmniebel at gmail.com (michael niebel)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 22:05:06 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
In-Reply-To: <560F6785-7B11-4D66-8A80-BBF459670FD7@cooperw.in>
References: <CB23B645-9851-4FAE-A7B6-F96FBEEFA853@cooperw.in>
	<CF8ADDCB044042BBB7207AA2210397C8@WUKPC>
	<560F6785-7B11-4D66-8A80-BBF459670FD7@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <CAMK78HVj0eY-ysBL-_eLJV2WWgUOL+Kf8T+GTZcHJM7RAQvuew@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, Alissa, given your "diplomatic" public wording we should exercise
positive flexibility as suggested by Wolf-Ulrich.

Michael

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. We did indeed leave the possibility open that we would
> be able to process late comments. The language has already been posted to
> our site and sent out on social media so I think we need to leave it as-is
> — both formulations give us some flexibility I think.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:52 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> wrote:
>
> Alissa,
>
> I agree that the public comment period is formally going to be closed that
> date and people should take it into consideration. However it may be
> possible for the team to address comments coming in short after the
> deadline - which in many cases happened already at ICANN. So I'm inclined
> to slightly soften the text to be posted in the following way:
> ...The ICG cannot commit guarantee to addressing any comments received
> after the deadline.
>
> Let’s discuss the status at the call tomorrow.
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:35 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
>
> The secretariat has received some questions about whether we will accept
> late comment submissions. We will be posting this to the public comment
> site:
>
> "The deadline for submitting comments is September 8 at 23:59 UTC. The ICG
> cannot commit to addressing any comments received after the deadline. If
> your final comment is not prepared to be submitted before the deadline, we
> suggest that you submit what you can before the deadline so that the ICG at
> least gets a sense of the direction of your comments."
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150908/4588ab8a/attachment.html>

From epusp75 at gmail.com  Tue Sep  8 20:42:50 2015
From: epusp75 at gmail.com (demi getschko)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:42:50 -0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel
	support
In-Reply-To: <00a701d0b41d$6647fef0$32d7fcd0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00a701d0b41d$6647fef0$32d7fcd0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <CANxu5yDgLFDOiFMN0YTXtRC3-M5XMxq+YMLZYTTDZAc_q=F0Mw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jennifer,

Sorry our delay...
*Mr Demi  Getschko *will need travel support for ICG F2F 6 in LA (17-20
Sept)

Thank you in advance!
Vera Braz
Secretary
NIC.br
55 (11) 5509.3517


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:45 PM
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel
support
To: ICG <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia


Dear All,



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



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



Best Regards,

Jennifer



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



Dear ICG Members,



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



In accordance with
<https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20>ICANN's
travel support guidelines
<https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20>
and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide
travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting.



Please note that supported travelers must book their air travel with
ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to
ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and
paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and
departure dates (17-20 September) for each supported traveler. ICANN will
only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and
economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and
other reasonable incidental expenses incurred.



We invite you please to flag any travel support requests you may have using
admin at icgsec.asia by *Friday **3 July 2015*.



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



Thanks,



Best regards,

Jennifer

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150908/fd7e6463/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Tue Sep  8 21:14:47 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 21:14:47 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
In-Reply-To: <CF8ADDCB044042BBB7207AA2210397C8@WUKPC>
References: <CB23B645-9851-4FAE-A7B6-F96FBEEFA853@cooperw.in>
	<CF8ADDCB044042BBB7207AA2210397C8@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB5892403EFE08B7F7B32182CAC530@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

I agree with Wolf-Ulrich.
There’s no need to be rigid about the deadline especially given the need for greater legitimacy from more comments and the need of some groups to go through extensive consultations before they can file. It should be easy to distinguish between people who missed the deadline by an hour or two (or four) and people who cooked up comments after the deadline or sent them in as reply comments to people who already filed.

And given ICANN’s latest antics, I suspect we will have _plenty_ of time to process comments as they roll in
;-)


--MM


From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 3:53 PM
To: Alissa Cooper; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Late comments

Alissa,

I agree that the public comment period is formally going to be closed that date and people should take it into consideration. However it may be possible for the team to address comments coming in short after the deadline - which in many cases happened already at ICANN. So I'm inclined to slightly soften the text to be posted in the following way:
...The ICG cannot commit guarantee to addressing any comments received after the deadline.

Let’s discuss the status at the call tomorrow.

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Alissa Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:35 PM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments

The secretariat has received some questions about whether we will accept late comment submissions. We will be posting this to the public comment site:

"The deadline for submitting comments is September 8 at 23:59 UTC. The ICG cannot commit to addressing any comments received after the deadline. If your final comment is not prepared to be submitted before the deadline, we suggest that you submit what you can before the deadline so that the ICG at least gets a sense of the direction of your comments."
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150908/7cc1a9b2/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Sep  9 00:32:23 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 20:32:23 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] The public comment period is now closed
Message-ID: <04cb01d0ea97$0002a900$0007fb00$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the public announcement and social media posts regarding the
closing of the ICG public comment period. 

 

Public announcement:
https://www.ianacg.org/the-public-comment-period-for-the-iana-stewardship-tr
ansition-proposal-is-now-closed/ 

 

FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1697424623819503

 

Twitter:

EN: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/641404437613944832 

FR: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/641404547370496000 

ES: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/641404701985140736

AR: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/641404844633391104

RU: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/641404948207550464 

ZH: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/641405155833966592

PT: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/641405233357303808

 

We have received a high volume of submissions during the last day of the
public comment period - please be patient as the Secretariat continues to
process all received comments.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150908/05820577/attachment.html>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Wed Sep  9 01:37:25 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:37:25 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
In-Reply-To: <CF8ADDCB044042BBB7207AA2210397C8@WUKPC>
References: <CB23B645-9851-4FAE-A7B6-F96FBEEFA853@cooperw.in>
	<CF8ADDCB044042BBB7207AA2210397C8@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <90F84129-C09B-4463-B97E-B38C4B30E216@apnic.net>

I agree to exercise flexibility.  We had an early discussion about the 
need for “targets” rather than “deadlines”, which I think is 
still important.

Paul.


On 9 Sep 2015, at 5:52, WUKnoben wrote:

> Alissa,
>
> I agree that the public comment period is formally going to be closed 
> that date and people should take it into consideration. However it may 
> be possible for the team to address comments coming in short after the 
> deadline - which in many cases happened already at ICANN. So I'm 
> inclined to slightly soften the text to be posted in the following 
> way:
> ...The ICG cannot commit guarantee to addressing any comments received 
> after the deadline.
>
> Let’s discuss the status at the call tomorrow.
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:35 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
>
> The secretariat has received some questions about whether we will 
> accept late comment submissions. We will be posting this to the public 
> comment site:
>
> "The deadline for submitting comments is September 8 at 23:59 UTC. The 
> ICG cannot commit to addressing any comments received after the 
> deadline. If your final comment is not prepared to be submitted before 
> the deadline, we suggest that you submit what you can before the 
> deadline so that the ICG at least gets a sense of the direction of 
> your comments."
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Sep  9 05:47:13 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 05:47:13 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
In-Reply-To: <90F84129-C09B-4463-B97E-B38C4B30E216@apnic.net>
References: <CB23B645-9851-4FAE-A7B6-F96FBEEFA853@cooperw.in>
	<CF8ADDCB044042BBB7207AA2210397C8@WUKPC>
	<90F84129-C09B-4463-B97E-B38C4B30E216@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <5358c13fc17c44d984ed6534f5bcc961@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

+1 to exercising flexibility with late comments ..
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 3:37 AM
To: WUKnoben
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Late comments

I agree to exercise flexibility.  We had an early discussion about the need for “targets” rather than “deadlines”, which I think is still important.

Paul.


On 9 Sep 2015, at 5:52, WUKnoben wrote:

> Alissa,
>
> I agree that the public comment period is formally going to be closed 
> that date and people should take it into consideration. However it may 
> be possible for the team to address comments coming in short after the 
> deadline - which in many cases happened already at ICANN. So I'm 
> inclined to slightly soften the text to be posted in the following
> way:
> ...The ICG cannot commit guarantee to addressing any comments received 
> after the deadline.
>
> Let’s discuss the status at the call tomorrow.
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:35 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
>
> The secretariat has received some questions about whether we will 
> accept late comment submissions. We will be posting this to the public 
> comment site:
>
> "The deadline for submitting comments is September 8 at 23:59 UTC. The 
> ICG cannot commit to addressing any comments received after the 
> deadline. If your final comment is not prepared to be submitted before 
> the deadline, we suggest that you submit what you can before the 
> deadline so that the ICG at least gets a sense of the direction of 
> your comments."
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 jjs at dyalog.net  Wed Sep  9 08:08:01 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 10:08:01 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
In-Reply-To: <5358c13fc17c44d984ed6534f5bcc961@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <13289382.337.1441786079566.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Flexibility: yes.
And +1 to Paul's reminder that in this exercise, "targets" are more appropriate than "deadlines".

Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Mercredi 9 Septembre 2015 07:47:13
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Late comments

+1 to exercising flexibility with late comments ..
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 3:37 AM
To: WUKnoben
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Late comments

I agree to exercise flexibility.  We had an early discussion about the need for “targets” rather than “deadlines”, which I think is still important.

Paul.


On 9 Sep 2015, at 5:52, WUKnoben wrote:

> Alissa,
>
> I agree that the public comment period is formally going to be closed 
> that date and people should take it into consideration. However it may 
> be possible for the team to address comments coming in short after the 
> deadline - which in many cases happened already at ICANN. So I'm 
> inclined to slightly soften the text to be posted in the following
> way:
> ...The ICG cannot commit guarantee to addressing any comments received 
> after the deadline.
>
> Let’s discuss the status at the call tomorrow.
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:35 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Late comments
>
> The secretariat has received some questions about whether we will 
> accept late comment submissions. We will be posting this to the public 
> comment site:
>
> "The deadline for submitting comments is September 8 at 23:59 UTC. The 
> ICG cannot commit to addressing any comments received after the 
> deadline. If your final comment is not prepared to be submitted before 
> the deadline, we suggest that you submit what you can before the 
> deadline so that the ICG at least gets a sense of the direction of 
> your comments."
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org__________
> _____________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg

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


From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Sep  9 15:03:53 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:03:53 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #22- THURSDAY, 10 Sept 2015,
	05:00-06:30 UTC
Message-ID: <02f101d0eb10$bf53ab00$3dfb0100$@icgsec.asia>

Dear ICG Members,

 

This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #22 is scheduled for
tomorrow:

 

**Thursday, 10 September 2015**

05:00-06:30 UTC

 

See time zone conversion here: http://icgsec.asia/1JvJJwr 

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
<mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> .

 

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

 

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



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

 

Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: ES, FR, ZH
and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please note
that Livestreaming translations in RU and PT will be unavailable for this
call, however a translation of the transcript will be provided after the
meeting.

 

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

 

Agenda proposed by Alissa

1) Public comments

- Plan for analysis

- Discussion of initial impressions

 

2) Logistics for Sept 18-19 F2F

 

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

 

Thank you!

 

Best regards

ICG Secretariat Team

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150909/1a96c4f3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150909/1a96c4f3/attachment.png>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep  9 16:02:06 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:02:06 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for call #22 - Sept 10
In-Reply-To: <89D3B21A-718A-47A1-80D0-5373F3A03CBF@cooperw.in>
References: <89D3B21A-718A-47A1-80D0-5373F3A03CBF@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <43A06D41-5670-409C-8400-947B637A1701@cooperw.in>

I’d like to add one more agenda item if our CCWG liaisons will be on the call and able to spend a few minutes providing the ICG with an update on CCWG activities:

1) Public comments
- Plan for analysis
- Discussion of initial impressions

2) Update on CCWG activities 

3) Logistics for Sept 18-19 F2F


Thanks,
Alissa

> On Sep 4, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> Here’s a proposed agenda for our upcoming call on Sept 10, 5:00-6:30 UTC:
> 
> 1) Public comments
> - Plan for analysis
> - Discussion of initial impressions
> 
> 2) Logistics for Sept 18-19 F2F
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From kdrazek at verisign.com  Wed Sep  9 16:03:50 2015
From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:03:50 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for call #22 - Sept 10
In-Reply-To: <43A06D41-5670-409C-8400-947B637A1701@cooperw.in>
References: <89D3B21A-718A-47A1-80D0-5373F3A03CBF@cooperw.in>
	<43A06D41-5670-409C-8400-947B637A1701@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499253DE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

Hi Alissa,

I will be on the call and would be happy to contribute to a CCWG update.

Regards,
Keith Drazek

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:02 PM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Agenda for call #22 - Sept 10

I’d like to add one more agenda item if our CCWG liaisons will be on the call and able to spend a few minutes providing the ICG with an update on CCWG activities:

1) Public comments
- Plan for analysis
- Discussion of initial impressions

2) Update on CCWG activities 

3) Logistics for Sept 18-19 F2F


Thanks,
Alissa

> On Sep 4, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> Here’s a proposed agenda for our upcoming call on Sept 10, 5:00-6:30 UTC:
> 
> 1) Public comments
> - Plan for analysis
> - Discussion of initial impressions
> 
> 2) Logistics for Sept 18-19 F2F
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


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

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep  9 16:38:30 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:38:30 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for call #22 - Sept 10
In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499253DE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <89D3B21A-718A-47A1-80D0-5373F3A03CBF@cooperw.in>
	<43A06D41-5670-409C-8400-947B637A1701@cooperw.in>
	<504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95499253DE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <820AD6B1-A7D1-49C1-9D17-33F926F3F61D@cooperw.in>

Thanks!

> On Sep 9, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> 
> I will be on the call and would be happy to contribute to a CCWG update.
> 
> Regards,
> Keith Drazek
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:02 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Agenda for call #22 - Sept 10
> 
> I’d like to add one more agenda item if our CCWG liaisons will be on the call and able to spend a few minutes providing the ICG with an update on CCWG activities:
> 
> 1) Public comments
> - Plan for analysis
> - Discussion of initial impressions
> 
> 2) Update on CCWG activities 
> 
> 3) Logistics for Sept 18-19 F2F
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
>> On Sep 4, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>> Here’s a proposed agenda for our upcoming call on Sept 10, 5:00-6:30 UTC:
>> 
>> 1) Public comments
>> - Plan for analysis
>> - Discussion of initial impressions
>> 
>> 2) Logistics for Sept 18-19 F2F
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Wed Sep  9 17:36:19 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 22:06:19 +0430
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #22- THURSDAY, 10 Sept 2015,
	05:00-06:30 UTC
In-Reply-To: <02f101d0eb10$bf53ab00$3dfb0100$@icgsec.asia>
References: <02f101d0eb10$bf53ab00$3dfb0100$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <743F8890-C9E0-4119-AF2C-ED2B0C0D488D@gmail.com>

Dear Jennifer
I am sorry I have no internet access
Kavouss 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Sep 2015, at 19:33, "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> 
> Dear ICG Members,
> 
>  
> 
> This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #22 is scheduled for tomorrow:
> 
>  
> 
> **Thursday, 10 September 2015**
> 
> 05:00-06:30 UTC
> 
>  
> 
> See time zone conversion here: http://icgsec.asia/1JvJJwr
> 
> Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/
> 
>  
> 
> You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call.  Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia.
> 
>  
> 
> Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room – https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room.
> 
>  
> 
> Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room:
> 
> <image001.png>
> 
> If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let the Secretariat team know.
> 
>  
> 
> Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: ES, FR, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please note that Livestreaming translations in RU and PT will be unavailable for this call, however a translation of the transcript will be provided after the meeting.
> 
>  
> 
> Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream.
> 
>  
> 
> Agenda proposed by Alissa
> 
> 1) Public comments
> 
> - Plan for analysis
> 
> - Discussion of initial impressions
> 
>  
> 
> 2) Logistics for Sept 18-19 F2F
> 
>  
> 
> As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you!
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
> ICG Secretariat Team
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150909/96e53eb6/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Wed Sep  9 18:43:33 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 20:43:33 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #22- THURSDAY, 10 Sept 2015,
 05:00-06:30 UTC
In-Reply-To: <02f101d0eb10$bf53ab00$3dfb0100$@icgsec.asia>
References: <02f101d0eb10$bf53ab00$3dfb0100$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <41402DE0-5388-4F34-A491-F2E1672B4D98@frobbit.se>

Jennifer, others,

Unfortunately I will be on a very late scheduled flight on my way to the office in Stockholm during the beginning of this call. I will call in as soon as I am able to.

   Patrik

On 9 Sep 2015, at 17:03, Jennifer Chung wrote:

> Dear ICG Members,
>
>
>
> This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #22 is scheduled for tomorrow:
>
>
>
> **Thursday, 10 September 2015**
>
> 05:00-06:30 UTC
>
>
>
> See time zone conversion here: http://icgsec.asia/1JvJJwr
>
> 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
> <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> .
>
>
>
> Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room -
> <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room.
>
>
>
> Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue.
> To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room:
>
>
>
> If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let the Secretariat team know.
>
>
>
> Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: ES, FR, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please note that Livestreaming translations in RU and PT will be unavailable for this call, however a translation of the transcript will be provided after the meeting.
>
>
>
> Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream.
>
>
>
> Agenda proposed by Alissa
>
> 1) Public comments
>
> - Plan for analysis
>
> - Discussion of initial impressions
>
>
>
> 2) Logistics for Sept 18-19 F2F
>
>
>
> As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out.
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> ICG Secretariat Team
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150909/08148466/attachment.sig>

From kdrazek at verisign.com  Wed Sep  9 19:49:10 2015
From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 19:49:10 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Update on CCWG-Accountability
Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549925B74@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

All,

In preparation for our upcoming call, here's a brief summary of recent developments in the CCWG-Accountability.

I welcome any additions or clarifications from Kavouss, who has been very engaged in the CCWG.


*         The CCWG is still targeting ICANN #54 in Dublin (October 18-22) for community approval of its recommendation.

*         The second public comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> on the CCWG-Accountability's proposal is currently open.

*         The 40-day public comment period was opened on August 3 and is scheduled to close on Saturday, September 12.

*         The CCWG-Accountability held three webinars on August 4, 7 and 25.

o   The slide presentation his here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/XPL_CCWG%20Proposal_Visual%20Summary_FINAL.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1438710229000&api=v2

*         On August 31, the CCWG gave a briefing to the ICANN Board. This session included a presentation from CCWG to Board with a Q&A session, designed to educate and inform ICANN Board members.

*         On September 2, the CCWG and ICANN Board had a follow-up meeting where the Board provided its preliminary feedback to the CCWG.

*         The ICANN Board's September 2 feedback agreed with the CCWG recommendations on community empowerment and enforceability, but also provided notice that the Board plans to submit public comments raising concerns with the proposed Sole Member model as a means to implement and enforce the community powers.

*         The September 2 CCWG-Board call was fairly contentious, but the CCWG is keeping an open mind and taking a wait-and-see approach, pending receipt of the details of the Board's concerns and suggestions.

*         The CCWG is currently awaiting the written, detailed comments from the ICANN Board, to include any legal analysis.

*         The legal teams from ICANN and the CCWG  met once last week to discuss the Board's concerns. They intend to meet again in the near future. Discussions to date have been non-substantive, pending finalization of the Board's detailed input.

*         The CCWG is continuing its work in planning for assessment of all public comments. It currently intends to consider the ICANN Board's input as part of the public comment period.

*         A face-to-face meeting of the CCWG-Accountability has been proposed for late September.

*         If a face-to-face meeting takes place, it will likely occur in Los Angeles around the time of the ICANN Board's retreat. This will hopefully facilitate any follow-on conversations to the Board's public comments.

*         It remains to be seen whether the Board's concerns are sufficiently fundamental or substantial that a third public comment period might be necessary (were the CCWG to accept and incorporate the Board's input).

I'm happy to discuss further on our upcoming call, but I wanted to provide a summary in advance to help facilitate the discussion.

Regards,
Keith

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150909/c06f3781/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep  9 23:05:18 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:05:18 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Update on CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549925B74@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549925B74@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <868EB6B1-0AAF-43A0-82CE-EE6DC93EF5BA@cooperw.in>

Thanks very much.

> On Sep 9, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> All,
>  
> In preparation for our upcoming call, here’s a brief summary of recent developments in the CCWG-Accountability.
>  
> I welcome any additions or clarifications from Kavouss, who has been very engaged in the CCWG.
>  
> ·         The CCWG is still targeting ICANN #54 in Dublin (October 18-22) for community approval of its recommendation.
> ·         The second public comment period <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> on the CCWG-Accountability’s proposal is currently open.
> ·         The 40-day public comment period was opened on August 3 and is scheduled to close on Saturday, September 12.
> ·         The CCWG-Accountability held three webinars on August 4, 7 and 25.
> o   The slide presentation his here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/XPL_CCWG%20Proposal_Visual%20Summary_FINAL.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1438710229000&api=v2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/XPL_CCWG%20Proposal_Visual%20Summary_FINAL.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1438710229000&api=v2>
> ·         On August 31, the CCWG gave a briefing to the ICANN Board. This session included a presentation from CCWG to Board with a Q&A session, designed to educate and inform ICANN Board members.
> ·         On September 2, the CCWG and ICANN Board had a follow-up meeting where the Board provided its preliminary feedback to the CCWG.
> ·         The ICANN Board’s September 2 feedback agreed with the CCWG recommendations on community empowerment and enforceability, but also provided notice that the Board plans to submit public comments raising concerns with the proposed Sole Member model as a means to implement and enforce the community powers. 
> ·         The September 2 CCWG-Board call was fairly contentious, but the CCWG is keeping an open mind and taking a wait-and-see approach, pending receipt of the details of the Board’s concerns and suggestions.
> ·         The CCWG is currently awaiting the written, detailed comments from the ICANN Board, to include any legal analysis.
> ·         The legal teams from ICANN and the CCWG  met once last week to discuss the Board’s concerns. They intend to meet again in the near future. Discussions to date have been non-substantive, pending finalization of the Board’s detailed input.
> ·         The CCWG is continuing its work in planning for assessment of all public comments. It currently intends to consider the ICANN Board’s input as part of the public comment period.
> ·         A face-to-face meeting of the CCWG-Accountability has been proposed for late September.
> ·         If a face-to-face meeting takes place, it will likely occur in Los Angeles around the time of the ICANN Board’s retreat. This will hopefully facilitate any follow-on conversations to the Board’s public comments.
> ·         It remains to be seen whether the Board’s concerns are sufficiently fundamental or substantial that a third public comment period might be necessary (were the CCWG to accept and incorporate the Board’s input).
>  
> I’m happy to discuss further on our upcoming call, but I wanted to provide a summary in advance to help facilitate the discussion.
>  
> Regards,
> Keith
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150909/b7b0d476/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Sep 10 06:25:57 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 02:25:57 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 22: Action items,
	Attendance list and Chat Transcript
Message-ID: <002101d0eb91$8f224f00$ad66ed00$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Action Item from ICG Call 22:

 

1. Secretariat to process and publish unconfirmed public comments received
during the public comment period.

 

 

Chat Transcript and Roll Call:

 

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

 

Participants:

Alan Barrett (NRO)

Alissa Cooper (IETF)

Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC)

Demi Getschko (ISOC)

Hartmut Glaser (ASO)

Jari Arkko (IETF)

Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS)

Keith Davidson (ccNSO)

Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries)

Lynn St Amour (IAB) 

Manal Ismail (GAC)

Martin Boyle (ccNSO)

Mary Uduma (ccNSO)

Michael Niebel (GAC)

Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC)

Narelle Clark (ISOC)

Patrik Fältström (SSAC)

Paul Wilson (NRO)

Russ Housley (IAB)

Russ Mundy (SSAC)

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) 

 

Apologies: 

Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison)

James Bladel (GNSO)

Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC)

Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC)

Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) 

Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)

Kuo-wei Wu (Board Liaison)

Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC)

Milton Mueller (GNSO)

Thomas Schneider (GAC)

Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO)

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/64bae051/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG Call 22 Chat transcript.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 280015 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/64bae051/attachment.pdf>

From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Thu Sep 10 08:39:16 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:39:16 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggestions for Public Comments
Message-ID: <55F141B4.506@ripe.net>


Just to confirm:

I proposed in the meeting that the secretariat include all 15
"unconfirmed" comments received before the deadline in the list of
comments unless they are obviously SPAM. The rationale is that the full
committee should rather consider 15 possible SPAM messages than miss
valid comment submitted before the deadline. I observed some support for
this in the chat room.

Further I suggest that we then provide the spreadsheet version of the
comments to all operational communities for information. The rationale
is that the communities are informed about all comments and that they
can make use of the work our secretariat has already done in formatting
them.

Daniel


From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Thu Sep 10 08:52:48 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:52:48 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Dealing with CCWG Outcomes and other Distractions
Message-ID: <55F144E0.6060905@ripe.net>


Thank you again Keith for the nice briefing on the CCWG developments.

I am sure we can all imagine all sorts of outcomes for the whole IANA
transition at this point. I can certainly imagine some pretty depressing
ones. As ICG member however I will argue the following:

As ICG we have to stick to our charter and plan. First and foremost we
have to produce our document as planned. When we have done that we are
done until one OC tells us that they no longer support it and want it
changed. It is at that point only that we should make a new plan and
adapt to the situation in a constructive and flexible way. In the
meantime let us just do our work as planned.

Of course this does not prevent any of us as individuals to help the CWG
and CCWG processes along and to make sure that the necessary
communication happens, especially between the three OCs that contributed
to our proposal.

Daniel


From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Thu Sep 10 09:57:55 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:57:55 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>
	<FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
	<D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org>
Message-ID: <90A869BCA4CC4247A2783C778AF9E1E7@WUKPC>

Hi Elise,

sorry for the late reaction to your kind message. I’m still interested to visit the IANA office on 17 September at the occasion of the ICG meeting next week. Main interest is to see the IANA staff working environment in order to get an impression which “hardware” we’re talking about besides the complex context thereof. In addition, a little exchange with you and your colleages available would be appreciated.

Some ICG colleagues showed interest to join (Hartmuth, Martin, Joe, Mary, maybe Kuo-Wei Wu) depending on their flight schedule. So we should be a small team somewhat between 1 and 5. I guess around 1 hour would be enough time .

I’d like to ask you not to initiate a big effort around the visit. Perhaps it could be arranged later in the afternoon that we can move thereafter to the reception planned at the hotel (time?). 

Thanks and regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Elise Gerich 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:16 PM
To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper 
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest,

You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip to our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30 minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates).

Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to discuss the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to coordinate the visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting.  

Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient.

See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,
-- Elise 


From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments


  Dear Elise, all,

  as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.
  My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.

  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich


  From: Elise Gerich 
  Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
  To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper 
  Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
  Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

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


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


    Kuo-Wei,

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

    Best regards

    Wolf-Ulrich

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

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

      Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：

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

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

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

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

    Thanks.

    Kuo Wu


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

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

      Alissa



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


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


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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  _______________________________________________
  Internal-cg mailing list
  Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
  http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/5b07de61/attachment.html>

From elise.gerich at icann.org  Thu Sep 10 10:42:25 2015
From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:42:25 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <90A869BCA4CC4247A2783C778AF9E1E7@WUKPC>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>
	<FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
	<D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<90A869BCA4CC4247A2783C778AF9E1E7@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <D2176DBF.395C8%elise.gerich@icann.org>

Dear Wolf-Ulrich,

You and other members are always welcome to stop by the ICANN office in
Playa Vista, California.  However, I am not sure what “hardware” you are
hoping to see.  All the hardware security modules, servers, and routers are
located in a colocation facility that is independent from the ICANN office.
We carry on our primary operations in a very normal office building.

>From 2:30 – 4:00 pm our staff is committed to a meeting with Keith Davidson
and Becky Burr to discuss the Framework of Interpretation topic.  If you and
our other ICG colleagues would like to come to the office at 1:30pm, I would
be able to show you our office space and introduce to those individuals who
will be in the office that day in advance of the meeting about the FOI.

Please let us know your plans when you have finalized them.

Best regards,
-- Elise 


From:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date:  Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:57 PM
To:  Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com"
<kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc:  "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject:  Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

> Hi Elise,
>  
> sorry for the late reaction to your kind message. I’m still interested to
> visit the IANA office on 17 September at the occasion of the ICG meeting next
> week. Main interest is to see the IANA staff working environment in order to
> get an impression which “hardware” we’re talking about besides the complex
> context thereof. In addition, a little exchange with you and your colleages
> available would be appreciated.
>  
> Some ICG colleagues showed interest to join (Hartmuth, Martin, Joe, Mary,
> maybe Kuo-Wei Wu) depending on their flight schedule. So we should be a small
> team somewhat between 1 and 5. I guess around 1 hour would be enough time .
>  
> I’d like to ask you not to initiate a big effort around the visit. Perhaps it
> could be arranged later in the afternoon that we can move thereafter to the
> reception planned at the hotel (time?).
> 
> Thanks and regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> From: Elise Gerich <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:16 PM
> To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>  ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ;
> Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest,
>  
> You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on
> Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to
> individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip to
> our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30
> minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates).
>  
> Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to discuss
> the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to coordinate the
> visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting.
>  
> Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in
> Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient.
>  
> See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,
> -- Elise 
>  
>  
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com"
> <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
>> Dear Elise, all,
>>  
>> as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks
>> to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time
>> available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in
>> an individual capacity.
>> My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the
>> afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd
>> really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to
>> join.
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>  
>> From: Elise Gerich <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
>> To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>  ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ;
>> Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>  
>> Wolf-Ulrich,
>> We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as
>> to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and the
>> interdependencies of the functions.
>> -- Elise 
>>  
>>  
>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
>> To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper
>> <alissa at cooperw.in>
>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>  
>>> Kuo-Wei,
>>>  
>>> I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several times
>>> in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in
>>> order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation.
>>> They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is
>>> crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the
>>> system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
>>> Career plan of staff is one element between others.
>>> I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff
>>> liaison could gide us.
>>>  
>>> Best regards
>>>  
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>  
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> From: Wu Kuo-Wei
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
>>> To: Alissa Cooper
>>> Cc: ICG Coordination Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>>  
>>> If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the
>>> liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
>>>  
>>>> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
>>>>  
>>>> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a
>>>> few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>>>>  
>>>> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point
>>>> out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of
>>>> implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would
>>>> be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference.
>>>> Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
>>>  
>>> It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate
>>> the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input
>>> from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term
>>> stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the
>>> career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status,
>>> IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan,
>>> and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn
>>> IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but
>>> ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than
>>> SLA, budget,..).
>>>  
>>> Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my
>>> comment.
>>>  
>>> Thanks.
>>>  
>>> Kuo Wu
>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be
>>>> considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My
>>>> question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public
>>>> comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG?
>>>> My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>>>>  
>>>> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s
>>>> relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I
>>>> note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of
>>>> the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our
>>>> work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
>>>>  
>>>> Alissa
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>  
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>  
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/439e025c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/439e025c/attachment.p7s>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Thu Sep 10 11:41:16 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:41:16 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <D2176DBF.395C8%elise.gerich@icann.org>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>
	<FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
	<D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<90A869BCA4CC4247A2783C778AF9E1E7@WUKPC>
	<D2176DBF.395C8%elise.gerich@icann.org>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B2C133@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

I will still be en route at that time, so will not be joining you.

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich
Sent: 10 September 2015 11:42
To: WUKnoben; kuoweiwu at gmail.com; Alissa Cooper
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Dear Wolf-Ulrich,

You and other members are always welcome to stop by the ICANN office in Playa Vista, California.  However, I am not sure what “hardware” you are hoping to see.  All the hardware security modules, servers, and routers are located in a colocation facility that is independent from the ICANN office.  We carry on our primary operations in a very normal office building.

From 2:30 – 4:00 pm our staff is committed to a meeting with Keith Davidson and Becky Burr to discuss the Framework of Interpretation topic.  If you and our other ICG colleagues would like to come to the office at 1:30pm, I would be able to show you our office space and introduce to those individuals who will be in the office that day in advance of the meeting about the FOI.

Please let us know your plans when you have finalized them.

Best regards,
-- Elise


From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:57 PM
To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org<mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com<mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com<mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>" <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Hi Elise,

sorry for the late reaction to your kind message. I’m still interested to visit the IANA office on 17 September at the occasion of the ICG meeting next week. Main interest is to see the IANA staff working environment in order to get an impression which “hardware” we’re talking about besides the complex context thereof. In addition, a little exchange with you and your colleages available would be appreciated.

Some ICG colleagues showed interest to join (Hartmuth, Martin, Joe, Mary, maybe Kuo-Wei Wu) depending on their flight schedule. So we should be a small team somewhat between 1 and 5. I guess around 1 hour would be enough time .

I’d like to ask you not to initiate a big effort around the visit. Perhaps it could be arranged later in the afternoon that we can move thereafter to the reception planned at the hotel (time?).

Thanks and regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Elise Gerich<mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:16 PM
To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com<mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com> ; Alissa Cooper<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest,

You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip to our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30 minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates).

Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to discuss the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to coordinate the visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting.

Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient.

See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,
-- Elise


From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org<mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com<mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com<mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>" <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Dear Elise, all,

as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.
My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.
Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Elise Gerich<mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com<mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com> ; Alissa Cooper<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

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


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

Kuo-Wei,

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

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

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

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

Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

Kuo Wu


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

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

Alissa



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


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


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

________________________________
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/7d18c88d/attachment.html>

From fmniebel at gmail.com  Thu Sep 10 12:35:27 2015
From: fmniebel at gmail.com (michael niebel)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:35:27 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Contribution of Internet Society China Submission ID
	95
Message-ID: <CAMK78HU3c3knDqYtOB9D8H0arPRsY4nbWNjoDUHLg74tpQhj8w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jennifer,

when will there be a translation of the text below available ?


Regards
Michael

12) Do you have any general comments for the ICG about the proposal?
中国互联网协会（Internet Society of China, ISC）对ICG和各社群卓有成效的工作表示万分的敬意，对运
营社群提案的整合工作成果表示祝贺，同时也对ICANN及时提供中文版的提案文本以及中文的评论通道表 示感谢！
ISC从域名提案中了解到，PTI董事会成员由ICANN指派，但尚未看到比较详细的PTI董事会成员遴选细则，
且对于该董事会的决策机制和流程也缺乏描述，建议后续能对此进行完善。
IANA职能审核小组的审核目标包括评估IANA职能运营商及任何相关监督监督机构的履职情况及其待改进
方面等内容，但是对于应该采取什么样的措施或原则，以促进和保障这些改进建议能够得到具体落实，提 案中也尚未看到有明确的描述。
以上两点评论，仅供参考。再次祝贺和感谢ICG和各社群的工作！
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/4a549a0a/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 10 13:29:22 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:29:22 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Contribution of Internet Society China Submission
	ID 95
In-Reply-To: <CAMK78HU3c3knDqYtOB9D8H0arPRsY4nbWNjoDUHLg74tpQhj8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMK78HU3c3knDqYtOB9D8H0arPRsY4nbWNjoDUHLg74tpQhj8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACD348D-3BA9-465E-9A0E-01443C492C97@cooperw.in>

The target date is Sept 16 for all of the comments that need to be translated, but it depends on translator availability.

Alissa

> On Sep 10, 2015, at 5:35 AM, michael niebel <fmniebel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Jennifer,
> 
> when will there be a translation of the text below available ?
> 
> 
> Regards
> Michael
> 
> 12) Do you have any general comments for the ICG about the proposal? 中国互联网协会（Internet Society of China, ISC）对ICG和各社群卓有成效的工作表示万分的敬意，对运 营社群提案的整合工作成果表示祝贺，同时也对ICANN及时提供中文版的提案文本以及中文的评论通道表 示感谢！ ISC从域名提案中了解到，PTI董事会成员由ICANN指派，但尚未看到比较详细的PTI董事会成员遴选细则， 且对于该董事会的决策机制和流程也缺乏描述，建议后续能对此进行完善。 IANA职能审核小组的审核目标包括评估IANA职能运营商及任何相关监督监督机构的履职情况及其待改进 方面等内容，但是对于应该采取什么样的措施或原则，以促进和保障这些改进建议能够得到具体落实，提 案中也尚未看到有明确的描述。 以上两点评论，仅供参考。再次祝贺和感谢ICG和各社群的工作！
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Sep 10 17:52:12 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:52:12 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggestions for Public Comments
In-Reply-To: <55F141B4.506@ripe.net>
References: <55F141B4.506@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <010901d0ebf1$6d5224d0$47f66e70$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Daniel and all,

All the unconfirmed comments that are not spam have been processed and
published on the archive:
https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-
public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ .

In total we have received 159 comments, of which 8 are in languages other
than English (1 in French, 4 in Chinese, 3 in Spanish).  The French
translated comment is available on the archive.  The remaining translations
are estimated to be delivered next Wednesday (pending translator
availability).

The public comment matrices will continue to be updated, circulated and
uploaded to the ICG public Dropbox.

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
Daniel Karrenberg
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:39 AM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggestions for Public Comments


Just to confirm:

I proposed in the meeting that the secretariat include all 15 "unconfirmed"
comments received before the deadline in the list of comments unless they
are obviously SPAM. The rationale is that the full committee should rather
consider 15 possible SPAM messages than miss valid comment submitted before
the deadline. I observed some support for this in the chat room.

Further I suggest that we then provide the spreadsheet version of the
comments to all operational communities for information. The rationale is
that the communities are informed about all comments and that they can make
use of the work our secretariat has already done in formatting them.

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  Thu Sep 10 18:02:32 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:02:32 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggestions for Public Comments
In-Reply-To: <010901d0ebf1$6d5224d0$47f66e70$@icgsec.asia>
References: <55F141B4.506@ripe.net>
	<010901d0ebf1$6d5224d0$47f66e70$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <55F1C5B8.7080101@oracle.com>

I will be out of pocket next week, can someone take the one Chinese 
comment I have?

On 9/10/2015 1:52 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
> Dear Daniel and all,
>
> All the unconfirmed comments that are not spam have been processed and
> published on the archive:
> https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-
> public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ .
>
> In total we have received 159 comments, of which 8 are in languages other
> than English (1 in French, 4 in Chinese, 3 in Spanish).  The French
> translated comment is available on the archive.  The remaining translations
> are estimated to be delivered next Wednesday (pending translator
> availability).
>
> The public comment matrices will continue to be updated, circulated and
> uploaded to the ICG public Dropbox.
>
> 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
> Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:39 AM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Suggestions for Public Comments
>
>
> Just to confirm:
>
> I proposed in the meeting that the secretariat include all 15 "unconfirmed"
> comments received before the deadline in the list of comments unless they
> are obviously SPAM. The rationale is that the full committee should rather
> consider 15 possible SPAM messages than miss valid comment submitted before
> the deadline. I observed some support for this in the chat room.
>
> Further I suggest that we then provide the spreadsheet version of the
> comments to all operational communities for information. The rationale is
> that the communities are informed about all comments and that they can make
> use of the work our secretariat has already done in formatting them.
>
> 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  Thu Sep 10 19:25:41 2015
From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:41 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <D2176DBF.395C8%elise.gerich@icann.org>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>
	<FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
	<D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<90A869BCA4CC4247A2783C778AF9E1E7@WUKPC>
	<D2176DBF.395C8%elise.gerich@icann.org>
Message-ID: <62D9827A-11EC-4B24-A47E-AA78B0846B8D@t-online.de>

Thanks for your kind offer, Elise.
I'd do my very best to be at your office that time you're suggesting. But this lies in the hands of the airline as well as the immigration procedure. My flight is scheduled to arrive LAX at 12:50, and I have real doubts that I can make it.
However, wouldn't there be still a chance to meet at around 4 pm after your meeting with Becky and Keith?

So far Milton would also join.

Regards
Wolf-Ulrich


Sent from my personal phone

> Am 10.09.2015 um 12:42 schrieb Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>:
> 
> Dear Wolf-Ulrich,
> 
> You and other members are always welcome to stop by the ICANN office in Playa Vista, California.  However, I am not sure what “hardware” you are hoping to see.  All the hardware security modules, servers, and routers are located in a colocation facility that is independent from the ICANN office.  We carry on our primary operations in a very normal office building.  
> 
> From 2:30 – 4:00 pm our staff is committed to a meeting with Keith Davidson and Becky Burr to discuss the Framework of Interpretation topic.  If you and our other ICG colleagues would like to come to the office at 1:30pm, I would be able to show you our office space and introduce to those individuals who will be in the office that day in advance of the meeting about the FOI.  
> 
> Please let us know your plans when you have finalized them.
> 
> Best regards,
> -- Elise 
> 
> 
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:57 PM
> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
> 
> Hi Elise,
>  
> sorry for the late reaction to your kind message. I’m still interested to visit the IANA office on 17 September at the occasion of the ICG meeting next week. Main interest is to see the IANA staff working environment in order to get an impression which “hardware” we’re talking about besides the complex context thereof. In addition, a little exchange with you and your colleages available would be appreciated.
>  
> Some ICG colleagues showed interest to join (Hartmuth, Martin, Joe, Mary, maybe Kuo-Wei Wu) depending on their flight schedule. So we should be a small team somewhat between 1 and 5. I guess around 1 hour would be enough time .
>  
> I’d like to ask you not to initiate a big effort around the visit. Perhaps it could be arranged later in the afternoon that we can move thereafter to the reception planned at the hotel (time?). 
> 
> Thanks and regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> From: Elise Gerich
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:16 PM
> To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest,
>  
> You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip to our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30 minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates).
>  
> Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to discuss the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to coordinate the visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting. 
>  
> Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient.
>  
> See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,
> -- Elise
>  
>  
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> Dear Elise, all,
>  
> as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.
> My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  
> From: Elise Gerich
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
> To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> Wolf-Ulrich,
> We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and the interdependencies of the functions.
> -- Elise
>  
>  
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
> To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> Kuo-Wei,
>  
> I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several times
> in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in
> order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation.
> They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is
> crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the
> system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
> Career plan of staff is one element between others.
> I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff
> liaison could gide us.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Wu Kuo-Wei
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: ICG Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the
> liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
>  
> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
>  
> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a
> few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>  
> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point
> out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of
> implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would
> be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference.
> Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
>  
> It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate
> the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input
> from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term
> stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the
> career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status,
> IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan,
> and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn
> IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but
> ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than
> SLA, budget,..).
>  
> Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my
> comment.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Kuo Wu
>  
>  
> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be
> considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My
> question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public
> comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG?
> My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>  
> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s
> relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I
> note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of
> the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our
> work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
>  
> Alissa
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/0a88f34c/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 10 19:58:01 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:58:01 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] OC roles during implementation phase
Message-ID: <A3FC62E2-5B18-43AF-AE89-65BBC117F6B4@cooperw.in>

Hi all,

I have a request to make as a follow-up to something I said on the recent call. I think it would be useful for the ICG to understand if the OCs have an idea of what they expect their role to be during the proposal implementation phase. If we could get that information from the OC reps before the F2F, I think it would help facilitate our discussion of what the ICG role should be, if any. So I’d like to ask Jari, Paul, Alan, Martin, Wolf-Ulrich, and Milton if you could provide whatever information is available along these lines from your respective OCs. I realize that on the one hand some implementation work is already ongoing and on the other hand the OCs may not have discussed their own roles much, so whatever information you feel is appropriate to provide would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Alissa

From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Sep 10 20:43:22 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:43:22 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix for ICG review
Message-ID: <016e01d0ec09$56399720$02acc560$@icgsec.asia>

Dear all,

 

Per Russ M's request, attached and linked below is the public comment matrix
with two columns added - one for ICG comments, one for Recommended course of
ICG action.  Please note that some entries are still being populated as we
speak, but you may start using this template for your review of the public
comments received.

 

Dropbox link for matrix: http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB 

Download link for all public comments received:
https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/icg-call-for-import-submissions-s
ep9-v6.zip [ZIP, 87 MB]

 

Please also note that the volunteer reviewers will be submitting their
reviews to the Secretariat by 23:59 UTC on Monday 14 Sept, and a more
comprehensive and complete matrix will be compiled and circulated to the ICG
mailing list by late Tuesday 15 Sept.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/b92bada1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-FOR-ICG-REVIEW.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 241787 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/b92bada1/attachment.xlsx>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Sep 10 21:03:45 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:03:45 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review
Message-ID: <017b01d0ec0c$3112e930$9338bb90$@icgsec.asia>

Dear all,

 

Please use this attached and linked updated corrected version of the matrix
for your review instead.

 

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB 

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/b66efed6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-FOR-ICG-REVIEW.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 239991 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/b66efed6/attachment.xlsx>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 10 21:23:35 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:23:35 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review
In-Reply-To: <017b01d0ec0c$3112e930$9338bb90$@icgsec.asia>
References: <017b01d0ec0c$3112e930$9338bb90$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <A3F4F961-99BD-4CDC-B6BA-DCAB8D2D3359@cooperw.in>

Yes, please use this version. The one previously circulated by Jennifer had some of my own personal notes in it based on a quick review of all of the comments. Those were not meant for broader ICG consumption.

Alissa

> On Sep 10, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
>  
> Please use this attached and linked updated corrected version of the matrix for your review instead.
>  
> Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB <http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB>
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
> <ICG-public-comment-matrix-FOR-ICG-REVIEW.xlsx>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150910/b53af7ed/attachment.html>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 10:40:18 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:40:18 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] OC roles during implementation phase
In-Reply-To: <A3FC62E2-5B18-43AF-AE89-65BBC117F6B4@cooperw.in>
References: <A3FC62E2-5B18-43AF-AE89-65BBC117F6B4@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <77E4EB01-68A6-45E8-8CE9-DB8BF72DACF2@gmail.com>

Dear Alissa
I id not understand the purpose of your proposal?
Are you opening a new opportunity to gave additional comments than those
 received ?
Why?
Are you planning to override the established procedure which was nit foreseen in our work Plan   ?
Until  I receive  the clear cut valid reasons  as foreseen in our charter,I disagree and oppose to that proposal.
As you know I was unable to attend the last  call  .
Regards
Kavouss


Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Sep 2015, at 21:58, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I have a request to make as a follow-up to something I said on the recent call. I think it would be useful for the ICG to understand if the OCs have an idea of what they expect their role to be during the proposal implementation phase. If we could get that information from the OC reps before the F2F, I think it would help facilitate our discussion of what the ICG role should be, if any. So I’d like to ask Jari, Paul, Alan, Martin, Wolf-Ulrich, and Milton if you could provide whatever information is available along these lines from your respective OCs. I realize that on the one hand some implementation work is already ongoing and on the other hand the OCs may not have discussed their own roles much, so whatever information you feel is appropriate to provide would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 10:44:12 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:44:12 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <62D9827A-11EC-4B24-A47E-AA78B0846B8D@t-online.de>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>
	<FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
	<D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<90A869BCA4CC4247A2783C778AF9E1E7@WUKPC>
	<D2176DBF.395C8%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<62D9827A-11EC-4B24-A47E-AA78B0846B8D@t-online.de>
Message-ID: <37A28506-8013-4A5D-8F21-E01231C2F78F@gmail.com>

Dear All,
I can not attend that meeting since I will arrive late on 17Sep.
When I asked to arrive on 16, ICANN travel Constituency did nit agree with that  .
I find myself in difficult position to be there.
Kavouss 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Sep 2015, at 21:25, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your kind offer, Elise.
> I'd do my very best to be at your office that time you're suggesting. But this lies in the hands of the airline as well as the immigration procedure. My flight is scheduled to arrive LAX at 12:50, and I have real doubts that I can make it.
> However, wouldn't there be still a chance to meet at around 4 pm after your meeting with Becky and Keith?
> 
> So far Milton would also join.
> 
> Regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> 
> Sent from my personal phone
> 
>> Am 10.09.2015 um 12:42 schrieb Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>:
>> 
>> Dear Wolf-Ulrich,
>> 
>> You and other members are always welcome to stop by the ICANN office in Playa Vista, California.  However, I am not sure what “hardware” you are hoping to see.  All the hardware security modules, servers, and routers are located in a colocation facility that is independent from the ICANN office.  We carry on our primary operations in a very normal office building.  
>> 
>> From 2:30 – 4:00 pm our staff is committed to a meeting with Keith Davidson and Becky Burr to discuss the Framework of Interpretation topic.  If you and our other ICG colleagues would like to come to the office at 1:30pm, I would be able to show you our office space and introduce to those individuals who will be in the office that day in advance of the meeting about the FOI.  
>> 
>> Please let us know your plans when you have finalized them.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> -- Elise 
>> 
>> 
>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:57 PM
>> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>> 
>> Hi Elise,
>>  
>> sorry for the late reaction to your kind message. I’m still interested to visit the IANA office on 17 September at the occasion of the ICG meeting next week. Main interest is to see the IANA staff working environment in order to get an impression which “hardware” we’re talking about besides the complex context thereof. In addition, a little exchange with you and your colleages available would be appreciated.
>>  
>> Some ICG colleagues showed interest to join (Hartmuth, Martin, Joe, Mary, maybe Kuo-Wei Wu) depending on their flight schedule. So we should be a small team somewhat between 1 and 5. I guess around 1 hour would be enough time .
>>  
>> I’d like to ask you not to initiate a big effort around the visit. Perhaps it could be arranged later in the afternoon that we can move thereafter to the reception planned at the hotel (time?). 
>> 
>> Thanks and regards
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> 
>>  
>> From: Elise Gerich
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:16 PM
>> To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>  
>> Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest,
>>  
>> You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip to our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30 minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates).
>>  
>> Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to discuss the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to coordinate the visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting. 
>>  
>> Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient.
>>  
>> See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,
>> -- Elise
>>  
>>  
>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
>> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>  
>> Dear Elise, all,
>>  
>> as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.
>> My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>  
>> From: Elise Gerich
>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
>> To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>  
>> Wolf-Ulrich,
>> We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and the interdependencies of the functions.
>> -- Elise
>>  
>>  
>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
>> To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>  
>> Kuo-Wei,
>>  
>> I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several times
>> in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in
>> order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation.
>> They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is
>> crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the
>> system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
>> Career plan of staff is one element between others.
>> I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff
>> liaison could gide us.
>>  
>> Best regards
>>  
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>  
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> From: Wu Kuo-Wei
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
>> To: Alissa Cooper
>> Cc: ICG Coordination Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>  
>> If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the
>> liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
>>  
>> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
>>  
>> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a
>> few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>>  
>> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point
>> out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of
>> implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would
>> be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference.
>> Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
>>  
>> It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate
>> the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input
>> from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term
>> stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the
>> career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status,
>> IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan,
>> and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn
>> IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but
>> ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than
>> SLA, budget,..).
>>  
>> Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my
>> comment.
>>  
>> Thanks.
>>  
>> Kuo Wu
>>  
>>  
>> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be
>> considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My
>> question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public
>> comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG?
>> My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>>  
>> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s
>> relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I
>> note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of 
>> the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our
>> work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
>>  
>> Alissa
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150911/41c1c995/attachment.html>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 10:57:11 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:57:11 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <90A869BCA4CC4247A2783C778AF9E1E7@WUKPC>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>
	<FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
	<D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<90A869BCA4CC4247A2783C778AF9E1E7@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <344F097F-F0BD-4E6F-9027-979724FA6E79@gmail.com>

Dear Wolf
I do not understand the purpose of the one hour meeting.
If you are interested you can go there but without any involvement if ICG in any discussion affecting our works
In an independent manner
Regards
Kavouss    

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Sep 2015, at 11:57, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Elise,
>  
> sorry for the late reaction to your kind message. I’m still interested to visit the IANA office on 17 September at the occasion of the ICG meeting next week. Main interest is to see the IANA staff working environment in order to get an impression which “hardware” we’re talking about besides the complex context thereof. In addition, a little exchange with you and your colleages available would be appreciated.
>  
> Some ICG colleagues showed interest to join (Hartmuth, Martin, Joe, Mary, maybe Kuo-Wei  Wu) depending on their flight schedule. So we should be a small team somewhat between 1 and 5. I guess around 1 hour would be enough time .
>  
> I’d like to ask you not to initiate a big effort around the visit. Perhaps it could be arranged later in the afternoon that we can move thereafter to the reception planned at the hotel (time?). 
> 
> Thanks and regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> From: Elise Gerich
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:16 PM
> To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest,
>  
> You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip to our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30 minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates).
>  
> Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to discuss the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to coordinate the visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting. 
>  
> Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient.
>  
> See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,
> -- Elise
>  
>  
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> Dear Elise, all,
>  
> as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.
> My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  
> From: Elise Gerich
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
> To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> Wolf-Ulrich,
> We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and the interdependencies of the functions.
> -- Elise
>  
>  
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
> To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> Kuo-Wei,
>  
> I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several times
> in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in
> order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation.
> They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is
> crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the
> system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
> Career plan of staff is one element between others.
> I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff
> liaison could gide us.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Wu Kuo-Wei
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: ICG Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the
> liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
>  
> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
>  
> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a
> few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>  
> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point
> out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of
> implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would
> be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference.
> Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
>  
> It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate
> the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input
> from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term
> stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the
> career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status,
> IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan,
> and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn
> IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but
> ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than
> SLA, budget,..).
>  
> Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my
> comment.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Kuo Wu
>  
>  
> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be
> considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My
> question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public
> comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG?
> My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>  
> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s
> relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I
> note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of
> the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our
> work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
>  
> Alissa
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150911/a791e10b/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Fri Sep 11 12:53:08 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:53:08 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <344F097F-F0BD-4E6F-9027-979724FA6E79@gmail.com>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in><82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com><FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC><D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org><CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC><D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org><90A869BCA4CC4247A2783C778AF9E1E7@WUKPC>
	<344F097F-F0BD-4E6F-9027-979724FA6E79@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F86FD28E4BC841FC9DFFF9828612C1DF@WUKPC>

Dear Kavouss,

I’m personally interested to see the IANA department which to my understanding will be affected by the outcome of our discussions.
There will be no invlvement of the ICG officially, just a visit of one or more persons who – for transparency – are members of the ICG.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Kavouss Arasteh 
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 12:57 PM
To: WUKnoben 
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Dear Wolf
I do not understand the purpose of the one hour meeting.
If you are interested you can go there but without any involvement if ICG in any discussion affecting our works
In an independent manner
Regards
Kavouss    

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Sep 2015, at 11:57, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:


  Hi Elise,

  sorry for the late reaction to your kind message. I’m still interested to visit the IANA office on 17 September at the occasion of the ICG meeting next week. Main interest is to see the IANA staff working environment in order to get an impression which “hardware” we’re talking about besides the complex context thereof. In addition, a little exchange with you and your colleages available would be appreciated.

  Some ICG colleagues showed interest to join (Hartmuth, Martin, Joe, Mary, maybe Kuo-Wei Wu) depending on their flight schedule. So we should be a small team somewhat between 1 and 5. I guess around 1 hour would be enough time .

  I’d like to ask you not to initiate a big effort around the visit. Perhaps it could be arranged later in the afternoon that we can move thereafter to the reception planned at the hotel (time?). 

  Thanks and regards

  Wolf-Ulrich



  From: Elise Gerich 
  Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:16 PM
  To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper 
  Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
  Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

  Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest,

  You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip to our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30 minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates).

  Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to discuss the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to coordinate the visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting.  

  Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient.

  See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,
  -- Elise 


  From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
  Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
  Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
  To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
  Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
  Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments


    Dear Elise, all,

    as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.
    My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.

    Best regards

    Wolf-Ulrich


    From: Elise Gerich 
    Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
    To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper 
    Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
    Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

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


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


      Kuo-Wei,

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

      Best regards

      Wolf-Ulrich

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

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

        Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：

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

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

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

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

      Thanks.

      Kuo Wu


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

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

        Alissa



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


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


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


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

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



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150911/d517cca3/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Fri Sep 11 15:16:30 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:16:30 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review
In-Reply-To: <A3F4F961-99BD-4CDC-B6BA-DCAB8D2D3359@cooperw.in>
References: <017b01d0ec0c$3112e930$9338bb90$@icgsec.asia>
	<A3F4F961-99BD-4CDC-B6BA-DCAB8D2D3359@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589AA1BF85EC277B76073C9AC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

I had already spent 90 minutes entering some of my analysis and comment summaries into the matrix we had yesterday. I do not intend to duplicate that work

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:24 PM
To: Jennifer Chung
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

Yes, please use this version. The one previously circulated by Jennifer had some of my own personal notes in it based on a quick review of all of the comments. Those were not meant for broader ICG consumption.

Alissa

On Sep 10, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>> wrote:

Dear all,

Please use this attached and linked updated corrected version of the matrix for your review instead.

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB

Best Regards,

Jennifer
<ICG-public-comment-matrix-FOR-ICG-REVIEW.xlsx>_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150911/ffeefa04/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Fri Sep 11 15:24:59 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:24:59 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589AA1BF85EC277B76073C9AC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <017b01d0ec0c$3112e930$9338bb90$@icgsec.asia>
	<A3F4F961-99BD-4CDC-B6BA-DCAB8D2D3359@cooperw.in>
	<DM2PR07MB589AA1BF85EC277B76073C9AC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589F610F96FCB7CA7E92CAAAC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Let me ask a related question. As I read my assigned comments and enter information, I find that the large amount of existing entries and summaries in there actually get in the way of my own work and make entry of my own summaries and comments more cumbersome and time consuming.

My inclination is to delete all pre-existing material and to turn in a spreadsheet that is:

a)      Clearly marked as Milton's assignments

b)      has only my own summaries of comments

c)       but follows the format established by Jennifer

What I want to know is whether this approach, which would definitely make my job easier, would make the Secretariat's job a lot harder. I would think it might make their work easier, too, because it would be clearer where I am adding comments and these additions could be more readily transferred to a "master" spreadsheet that contains the analyses of all the others.

--MM

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:17 AM
To: Alissa Cooper; Jennifer Chung
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

I had already spent 90 minutes entering some of my analysis and comment summaries into the matrix we had yesterday. I do not intend to duplicate that work

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:24 PM
To: Jennifer Chung
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

Yes, please use this version. The one previously circulated by Jennifer had some of my own personal notes in it based on a quick review of all of the comments. Those were not meant for broader ICG consumption.

Alissa

On Sep 10, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>> wrote:

Dear all,

Please use this attached and linked updated corrected version of the matrix for your review instead.

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB

Best Regards,

Jennifer
<ICG-public-comment-matrix-FOR-ICG-REVIEW.xlsx>_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150911/99994c27/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Sep 11 16:36:02 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:36:02 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589F610F96FCB7CA7E92CAAAC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <017b01d0ec0c$3112e930$9338bb90$@icgsec.asia>	<A3F4F961-99BD-4CDC-B6BA-DCAB8D2D3359@cooperw.in>
	<DM2PR07MB589AA1BF85EC277B76073C9AC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<DM2PR07MB589F610F96FCB7CA7E92CAAAC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <000001d0ecaf$f38b50d0$daa1f270$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Milton and all,

 

Please feel free to remove the entries that are in the way of your assigned
comments - the matrix is for your use as a template.  I will compile all the
assessments in a master spreadsheet once I receive all the reviewers'
summaries/comments.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

 

From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu] 
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 8:25 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>; Alissa Cooper
<alissa at cooperw.in>; Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

 

Let me ask a related question. As I read my assigned comments and enter
information, I find that the large amount of existing entries and summaries
in there actually get in the way of my own work and make entry of my own
summaries and comments more cumbersome and time consuming.

 

My inclination is to delete all pre-existing material and to turn in a
spreadsheet that is:

a)       Clearly marked as Milton's assignments

b)      has only my own summaries of comments 

c)       but follows the format established by Jennifer

 

What I want to know is whether this approach, which would definitely make my
job easier, would make the Secretariat's job a lot harder. I would think it
might make their work easier, too, because it would be clearer where I am
adding comments and these additions could be more readily transferred to a
"master" spreadsheet that contains the analyses of all the others. 

 

--MM

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:17 AM
To: Alissa Cooper; Jennifer Chung
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

 

I had already spent 90 minutes entering some of my analysis and comment
summaries into the matrix we had yesterday. I do not intend to duplicate
that work

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Alissa Cooper
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:24 PM
To: Jennifer Chung
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

 

Yes, please use this version. The one previously circulated by Jennifer had
some of my own personal notes in it based on a quick review of all of the
comments. Those were not meant for broader ICG consumption.

 

Alissa

 

On Sep 10, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia
<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> > wrote:

 

Dear all,

 

Please use this attached and linked updated corrected version of the matrix
for your review instead.

 

Dropbox link:  <http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB> http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

<ICG-public-comment-matrix-FOR-ICG-REVIEW.xlsx>_____________________________
__________________
Internal-cg mailing list
 <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
 <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150911/daffc934/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Fri Sep 11 16:38:13 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:38:13 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589F610F96FCB7CA7E92CAAAC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <017b01d0ec0c$3112e930$9338bb90$@icgsec.asia>
	<A3F4F961-99BD-4CDC-B6BA-DCAB8D2D3359@cooperw.in>
	<DM2PR07MB589AA1BF85EC277B76073C9AC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<DM2PR07MB589F610F96FCB7CA7E92CAAAC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <55F30375.8050909@oracle.com>

If this makes sense, perhaps the secretariat could provide the blank 
template so they could assure the possibility for more seamless 
integration.  We are all appreciative of all the work the secretariat 
has done to make life easier for us, and I wish to re-emphasize the 
concept that we do not wish to complicate the secretariat's life more 
unreasonably  than we have already...

Joe

On 9/11/2015 11:24 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Let me ask a related question. As I read my assigned comments and 
> enter information, I find that the large amount of existing entries 
> and summaries in there actually get in the way of my own work and make 
> entry of my own summaries and comments more cumbersome and time consuming.
>
> My inclination is to delete all pre-existing material and to turn in a 
> spreadsheet that is:
>
> a)Clearly marked as Milton’s assignments
>
> b)has only my own summaries of comments
>
> c)but follows the format established by Jennifer
>
> What I want to know is whether this approach, which would definitely 
> make my job easier, would make the Secretariat’s job a lot harder. I 
> would think it might make their work easier, too, because it would be 
> clearer where I am adding comments and these additions could be more 
> readily transferred to a “master” spreadsheet that contains the 
> analyses of all the others.
>
> --MM
>
> *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf 
> Of *Mueller, Milton L
> *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 11:17 AM
> *To:* Alissa Cooper; Jennifer Chung
> *Cc:* IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review
>
> I had already spent 90 minutes entering some of my analysis and 
> comment summaries into the matrix we had yesterday. I do not intend to 
> duplicate that work
>
> *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf 
> Of *Alissa Cooper
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:24 PM
> *To:* Jennifer Chung
> *Cc:* IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review
>
> Yes, please use this version. The one previously circulated by 
> Jennifer had some of my own personal notes in it based on a quick 
> review of all of the comments. Those were not meant for broader ICG 
> consumption.
>
> Alissa
>
>     On Sep 10, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia
>     <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     Please use this attached and linked updated corrected version of
>     the matrix for your review instead.
>
>     Dropbox link:http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB
>
>     Best Regards,
>
>     Jennifer
>
>     <ICG-public-comment-matrix-FOR-ICG-REVIEW.xlsx>_______________________________________________
>     Internal-cg mailing list
>     Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>     http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150911/25d625b6/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Sep 11 17:03:52 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:03:52 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review
In-Reply-To: <55F30375.8050909@oracle.com>
References: <017b01d0ec0c$3112e930$9338bb90$@icgsec.asia>	<A3F4F961-99BD-4CDC-B6BA-DCAB8D2D3359@cooperw.in>	<DM2PR07MB589AA1BF85EC277B76073C9AC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>	<DM2PR07MB589F610F96FCB7CA7E92CAAAC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<55F30375.8050909@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <001301d0ecb3$d6d1f710$8475e530$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Joe and all,

 

Attached is a blank matrix with just the headings.  The first sheet with the
general information and links to the individual entries have been left for
your reference.  Please feel free to use this for your reviews.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
joseph alhadeff
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:38 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

 

If this makes sense, perhaps the secretariat could provide the blank
template so they could assure the possibility for more seamless integration.
We are all appreciative of all the work the secretariat has done to make
life easier for us, and I wish to re-emphasize the concept that we do not
wish to complicate the secretariat's life more unreasonably  than we have
already...

Joe

On 9/11/2015 11:24 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

Let me ask a related question. As I read my assigned comments and enter
information, I find that the large amount of existing entries and summaries
in there actually get in the way of my own work and make entry of my own
summaries and comments more cumbersome and time consuming.

 

My inclination is to delete all pre-existing material and to turn in a
spreadsheet that is:

a)     Clearly marked as Milton's assignments

b)     has only my own summaries of comments 

c)     but follows the format established by Jennifer

 

What I want to know is whether this approach, which would definitely make my
job easier, would make the Secretariat's job a lot harder. I would think it
might make their work easier, too, because it would be clearer where I am
adding comments and these additions could be more readily transferred to a
"master" spreadsheet that contains the analyses of all the others. 

 

--MM

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:17 AM
To: Alissa Cooper; Jennifer Chung
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

 

I had already spent 90 minutes entering some of my analysis and comment
summaries into the matrix we had yesterday. I do not intend to duplicate
that work

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Alissa Cooper
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:24 PM
To: Jennifer Chung
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

 

Yes, please use this version. The one previously circulated by Jennifer had
some of my own personal notes in it based on a quick review of all of the
comments. Those were not meant for broader ICG consumption.

 

Alissa

 

On Sep 10, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia
<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> > wrote:

 

Dear all,

 

Please use this attached and linked updated corrected version of the matrix
for your review instead.

 

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

<ICG-public-comment-matrix-FOR-ICG-REVIEW.xlsx>_____________________________
__________________
Internal-cg mailing list
 <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
 <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

 






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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150911/4922f05e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-BLANK-FOR-ICG-REVIEW.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 91638 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150911/4922f05e/attachment.xlsx>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Fri Sep 11 17:16:45 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:16:45 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] OC roles during implementation phase
In-Reply-To: <77E4EB01-68A6-45E8-8CE9-DB8BF72DACF2@gmail.com>
References: <A3FC62E2-5B18-43AF-AE89-65BBC117F6B4@cooperw.in>
	<77E4EB01-68A6-45E8-8CE9-DB8BF72DACF2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5C178370-5FDC-483D-BE52-4E513FAD5C9D@cooperw.in>

Hi Kavouss,

My responses are in-line below.

> On Sep 11, 2015, at 3:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Alissa
> I id not understand the purpose of your proposal?

The purpose is to get an update from the OCs about what they plan for their roles to be during the implementation phase of the transition.

> Are you opening a new opportunity to gave additional comments than those
> received ?

No.

> Why?
> Are you planning to override the established procedure which was nit foreseen in our work Plan   ?

No.

Best,
Alissa

> Until  I receive  the clear cut valid reasons  as foreseen in our charter,I disagree and oppose to that proposal.
> As you know I was unable to attend the last  call  .
> Regards
> Kavouss
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 21:58, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I have a request to make as a follow-up to something I said on the recent call. I think it would be useful for the ICG to understand if the OCs have an idea of what they expect their role to be during the proposal implementation phase. If we could get that information from the OC reps before the F2F, I think it would help facilitate our discussion of what the ICG role should be, if any. So I’d like to ask Jari, Paul, Alan, Martin, Wolf-Ulrich, and Milton if you could provide whatever information is available along these lines from your respective OCs. I realize that on the one hand some implementation work is already ongoing and on the other hand the OCs may not have discussed their own roles much, so whatever information you feel is appropriate to provide would be appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Sat Sep 12 21:39:13 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:39:13 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment review
In-Reply-To: <001301d0ecb3$d6d1f710$8475e530$@icgsec.asia>
References: <017b01d0ec0c$3112e930$9338bb90$@icgsec.asia>	<A3F4F961-99BD-4CDC-B6BA-DCAB8D2D3359@cooperw.in>	<DM2PR07MB589AA1BF85EC277B76073C9AC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>	<DM2PR07MB589F610F96FCB7CA7E92CAAAC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com><55F30375.8050909@oracle.com>
	<001301d0ecb3$d6d1f710$8475e530$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <D2193F5747CB4E339421B6241D266AB4@WUKPC>

All,

The Brazilian Government in its comment is referring to its position paper of 20 May 2015 with regards to the "Response to the
IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request
for Proposals on the IANA Stewardship Transition from the
Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related
Functions (CWG-Stewardship)”.

Does anybody know, where I could find that paper?

Thaks and regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Jennifer Chung 
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 7:03 PM
To: 'joseph alhadeff' ; internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

Dear Joe and all,

 

Attached is a blank matrix with just the headings.  The first sheet with the general information and links to the individual entries have been left for your reference.  Please feel free to use this for your reviews.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:38 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

 

If this makes sense, perhaps the secretariat could provide the blank template so they could assure the possibility for more seamless integration.  We are all appreciative of all the work the secretariat has done to make life easier for us, and I wish to re-emphasize the concept that we do not wish to complicate the secretariat's life more unreasonably  than we have already...

Joe

On 9/11/2015 11:24 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

  Let me ask a related question. As I read my assigned comments and enter information, I find that the large amount of existing entries and summaries in there actually get in the way of my own work and make entry of my own summaries and comments more cumbersome and time consuming.

   

  My inclination is to delete all pre-existing material and to turn in a spreadsheet that is:

  a)     Clearly marked as Milton’s assignments

  b)     has only my own summaries of comments 

  c)     but follows the format established by Jennifer

   

  What I want to know is whether this approach, which would definitely make my job easier, would make the Secretariat’s job a lot harder. I would think it might make their work easier, too, because it would be clearer where I am adding comments and these additions could be more readily transferred to a “master” spreadsheet that contains the analyses of all the others. 

   

  --MM

   

  From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
  Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:17 AM
  To: Alissa Cooper; Jennifer Chung
  Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
  Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

   

  I had already spent 90 minutes entering some of my analysis and comment summaries into the matrix we had yesterday. I do not intend to duplicate that work

   

  From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
  Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:24 PM
  To: Jennifer Chung
  Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
  Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

   

  Yes, please use this version. The one previously circulated by Jennifer had some of my own personal notes in it based on a quick review of all of the comments. Those were not meant for broader ICG consumption.

   

  Alissa

   

    On Sep 10, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

     

    Dear all,

     

    Please use this attached and linked updated corrected version of the matrix for your review instead.

     

    Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB

     

    Best Regards,

     

    Jennifer

    <ICG-public-comment-matrix-FOR-ICG-REVIEW.xlsx>_______________________________________________
    Internal-cg mailing list
    Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
    http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

   






_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150912/0dd5167a/attachment.html>

From jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br  Sat Sep 12 22:11:11 2015
From: jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br (Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:11:11 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] RES:  Public comment review
In-Reply-To: <D2193F5747CB4E339421B6241D266AB4@WUKPC>
References: <017b01d0ec0c$3112e930$9338bb90$@icgsec.asia>
	<A3F4F961-99BD-4CDC-B6BA-DCAB8D2D3359@cooperw.in>
	<DM2PR07MB589AA1BF85EC277B76073C9AC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<DM2PR07MB589F610F96FCB7CA7E92CAAAC500@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com><55F30375.8050909@oracle.com>
	<001301d0ecb3$d6d1f710$8475e530$@icgsec.asia>,
	<D2193F5747CB4E339421B6241D266AB4@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FBCB86124@URANO20.itamaraty.local>

Dear Wolf-Ulrich,


Please find attached the document you mentioned.

Best regards,


Jandyr Santos
________________________________
De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] em nome de WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de]
Enviado: sábado, 12 de setembro de 2015 18:39
Para: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Assunto: [Internal-cg] Public comment review

All,

The Brazilian Government in its comment is referring to its position paper of 20 May 2015 with regards to the "Response to the
IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request
for Proposals on the IANA Stewardship Transition from the
Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related
Functions (CWG-Stewardship)”.

Does anybody know, where I could find that paper?

Thaks and regards

Wolf-Ulrich


From: Jennifer Chung<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 7:03 PM
To: 'joseph alhadeff'<mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> ; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

Dear Joe and all,

Attached is a blank matrix with just the headings.  The first sheet with the general information and links to the individual entries have been left for your reference.  Please feel free to use this for your reviews.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:38 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

If this makes sense, perhaps the secretariat could provide the blank template so they could assure the possibility for more seamless integration.  We are all appreciative of all the work the secretariat has done to make life easier for us, and I wish to re-emphasize the concept that we do not wish to complicate the secretariat's life more unreasonably  than we have already...

Joe
On 9/11/2015 11:24 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Let me ask a related question. As I read my assigned comments and enter information, I find that the large amount of existing entries and summaries in there actually get in the way of my own work and make entry of my own summaries and comments more cumbersome and time consuming.

My inclination is to delete all pre-existing material and to turn in a spreadsheet that is:

a)     Clearly marked as Milton’s assignments

b)     has only my own summaries of comments

c)     but follows the format established by Jennifer

What I want to know is whether this approach, which would definitely make my job easier, would make the Secretariat’s job a lot harder. I would think it might make their work easier, too, because it would be clearer where I am adding comments and these additions could be more readily transferred to a “master” spreadsheet that contains the analyses of all the others.

--MM

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:17 AM
To: Alissa Cooper; Jennifer Chung
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

I had already spent 90 minutes entering some of my analysis and comment summaries into the matrix we had yesterday. I do not intend to duplicate that work

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:24 PM
To: Jennifer Chung
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] UPDATED Public comment matrix for ICG review

Yes, please use this version. The one previously circulated by Jennifer had some of my own personal notes in it based on a quick review of all of the comments. Those were not meant for broader ICG consumption.

Alissa

On Sep 10, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>> wrote:

Dear all,

Please use this attached and linked updated corrected version of the matrix for your review instead.

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1UJU0VB

Best Regards,

Jennifer
<ICG-public-comment-matrix-FOR-ICG-REVIEW.xlsx>_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org





_______________________________________________

Internal-cg mailing list

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

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


________________________________
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150912/a3966a5f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2015 5 20.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 141821 bytes
Desc: 2015 5 20.pdf
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150912/a3966a5f/attachment.pdf>

From elise.gerich at icann.org  Sun Sep 13 22:50:53 2015
From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:50:53 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <62D9827A-11EC-4B24-A47E-AA78B0846B8D@t-online.de>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>
	<FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
	<D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<90A869BCA4CC4247A2783C778AF9E1E7@WUKPC>
	<D2176DBF.395C8%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<62D9827A-11EC-4B24-A47E-AA78B0846B8D@t-online.de>
Message-ID: <D21B4AA4.396AC%elise.gerich@icann.org>

Wolf-Ulrich,

You are certainly welcome to visit the office at 4pm if that is convenient.
My plan had been to depart from the ICANN offices at 4pm to avoid the
traffic between Playa Visita and the ICG meeting location; however, I will
be happy to revise that plan in order greet you at 4pm at the office.

Best regards,
-- Elise 


From:  "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
Date:  Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 12:25 PM
To:  Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>
Cc:  "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper
<alissa at cooperw.in>, "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject:  Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

> Thanks for your kind offer, Elise.
> I'd do my very best to be at your office that time you're suggesting. But this
> lies in the hands of the airline as well as the immigration procedure. My
> flight is scheduled to arrive LAX at 12:50, and I have real doubts that I can
> make it.
> However, wouldn't there be still a chance to meet at around 4 pm after your
> meeting with Becky and Keith?
> 
> So far Milton would also join.
> 
> Regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> 
> Sent from my personal phone
> 
> Am 10.09.2015 um 12:42 schrieb Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>:
> 
>> Dear Wolf-Ulrich,
>> 
>> You and other members are always welcome to stop by the ICANN office in Playa
>> Vista, California.  However, I am not sure what “hardware” you are hoping to
>> see.  All the hardware security modules, servers, and routers are located in
>> a colocation facility that is independent from the ICANN office.  We carry on
>> our primary operations in a very normal office building.
>> 
>> From 2:30 – 4:00 pm our staff is committed to a meeting with Keith Davidson
>> and Becky Burr to discuss the Framework of Interpretation topic.  If you and
>> our other ICG colleagues would like to come to the office at 1:30pm, I would
>> be able to show you our office space and introduce to those individuals who
>> will be in the office that day in advance of the meeting about the FOI.
>> 
>> Please let us know your plans when you have finalized them.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> -- Elise 
>> 
>> 
>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:57 PM
>> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com"
>> <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>> 
>>> Hi Elise,
>>>  
>>> sorry for the late reaction to your kind message. I’m still interested to
>>> visit the IANA office on 17 September at the occasion of the ICG meeting
>>> next week. Main interest is to see the IANA staff working environment in
>>> order to get an impression which “hardware” we’re talking about besides the
>>> complex context thereof. In addition, a little exchange with you and your
>>> colleages available would be appreciated.
>>>  
>>> Some ICG colleagues showed interest to join (Hartmuth, Martin, Joe, Mary,
>>> maybe Kuo-Wei Wu) depending on their flight schedule. So we should be a
>>> small team somewhat between 1 and 5. I guess around 1 hour would be enough
>>> time .
>>>  
>>> I’d like to ask you not to initiate a big effort around the visit. Perhaps
>>> it could be arranged later in the afternoon that we can move thereafter to
>>> the reception planned at the hotel (time?).
>>> 
>>> Thanks and regards
>>> 
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>> 
>>>  
>>> From: Elise Gerich <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:16 PM
>>> To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>  ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ;
>>> Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>>  
>>> Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest,
>>>  
>>> You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on
>>> Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to
>>> individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip
>>> to our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30
>>> minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates).
>>>  
>>> Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to
>>> discuss the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to
>>> coordinate the visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting.
>>>  
>>> Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in
>>> Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient.
>>>  
>>> See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,
>>> -- Elise 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
>>> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com"
>>> <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
>>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>>  
>>>> Dear Elise, all,
>>>>  
>>>> as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged
>>>> thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the
>>>> time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department
>>>> – in an individual capacity.
>>>> My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the
>>>> afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd
>>>> really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time
>>>> to join.
>>>> Best regards
>>>> 
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>  
>>>> From: Elise Gerich <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
>>>> To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>  ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com
>>>> ; Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
>>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>>>  
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich,
>>>> We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as
>>>> to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and
>>>> the interdependencies of the functions.
>>>> -- Elise 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
>>>> To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper
>>>> <alissa at cooperw.in>
>>>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>>>  
>>>>> Kuo-Wei,
>>>>>  
>>>>> I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several
>>>>> times 
>>>>> in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in
>>>>> order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA
>>>>> organisation.
>>>>> They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is
>>>>> crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the
>>>>> system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
>>>>> Career plan of staff is one element between others.
>>>>> I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff
>>>>> liaison could gide us.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>  
>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>>  
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> From: Wu Kuo-Wei
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
>>>>> To: Alissa Cooper
>>>>> Cc: ICG Coordination Group
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>>>>  
>>>>> If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the
>>>>> liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
>>>>>  
>>>>>> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a
>>>>>> few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin)
>>>>>> point 
>>>>>> out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of
>>>>>> implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would
>>>>>> be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference.
>>>>>> Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
>>>>>  
>>>>> It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to
>>>>> separate 
>>>>> the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input
>>>>> from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long
>>>>> term 
>>>>> stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for
>>>>> the 
>>>>> career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status,
>>>>> IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan,
>>>>> and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn
>>>>> IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but
>>>>> ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than
>>>>> SLA, budget,..).
>>>>>  
>>>>> Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop
>>>>> my 
>>>>> comment.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Kuo Wu
>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be
>>>>>> considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My
>>>>>> question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public
>>>>>> comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG?
>>>>>> My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s
>>>>>> relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I
>>>>>> note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of
>>>>>> the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our
>>>>>> work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150913/fa854339/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150913/fa854339/attachment.p7s>

From mnuduma at yahoo.com  Mon Sep 14 15:53:07 2015
From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:53:07 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <D21B4AA4.396AC%elise.gerich@icann.org>
References: <D21B4AA4.396AC%elise.gerich@icann.org>
Message-ID: <1911291036.2247794.1442245987711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

I will available to join at any time from 12.50 since my flight is arriving early in the morning. Wolf kindly confirm meeting point.  Will be in the hotel on time.

Mary
 


     On Sunday, September 13, 2015 11:51 PM, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org> wrote:
   

 Wolf-Ulrich,
You are certainly welcome to visit the office at 4pm if that is convenient.   My plan had been to depart from the ICANN offices at 4pm to avoid the traffic between Playa Visita and the ICG meeting location; however, I will be happy to revise that plan in order greet you at 4pm at the office. 
Best regards,-- Elise 

From:  "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
Date:  Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 12:25 PM
To:  Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>
Cc:  "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>, "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject:  Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments



Thanks for your kind offer, Elise.I'd do my very best to be at your office that time you're suggesting. But this lies in the hands of the airline as well as the immigration procedure. My flight is scheduled to arrive LAX at 12:50, and I have real doubts that I can make it.However, wouldn't there be still a chance to meet at around 4 pm after your meeting with Becky and Keith?
So far Milton would also join.
RegardsWolf-Ulrich

Sent from my personal phone
Am 10.09.2015 um 12:42 schrieb Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>:


Dear Wolf-Ulrich,
You and other members are always welcome to stop by the ICANN office in Playa Vista, California.  However, I am not sure what “hardware” you are hoping to see.  All the hardware security modules, servers, and routers are located in a colocation facility that is independent from the ICANN office.  We carry on our primary operations in a very normal office building.  
>From 2:30 – 4:00 pm our staff is committed to a meeting with Keith Davidson and Becky Burr to discuss the Framework of Interpretation topic.  If you and our other ICG colleagues would like to come to the office at 1:30pm, I would be able to show you our office space and introduce to those individuals who will be in the office that day in advance of the meeting about the FOI.  
Please let us know your plans when you have finalized them.
Best regards,-- Elise 

From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:57 PM
To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments


Hi Elise, sorry for the late reaction to your kind message. I’m still interested to visit the IANA office on 17 September at the occasion of the ICG meeting next week. Main interest is to see the IANA staff working environment in order to get an impression which “hardware” we’re talking about besides the complex context thereof. In addition, a little exchange with you and your colleages available would be appreciated. Some ICG colleagues showed interest to join (Hartmuth, Martin, Joe, Mary, maybe Kuo-Wei Wu) depending on their flight schedule. So we should be a small team somewhat between 1 and 5. I guess around 1 hour would be enough time . I’d like to ask you not to initiate a big effort around the visit. Perhaps it could be arranged later in the afternoon that we can move thereafter to the reception planned at the hotel (time?).

Thanks and regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 From: Elise Gerich Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:16 PMTo: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ;Alissa Cooper Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest, You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip to our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30 minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates). Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to discuss the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to coordinate the visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting.  Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient. See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,-- Elise   From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
 
Dear Elise, all, as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.
Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich
 From: Elise Gerich Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AMTo: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ;Alissa Cooper Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments Wolf-Ulrich,We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and the interdependencies of the functions.-- Elise   From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
 
Kuo-Wei, I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several timesin various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation. They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.Career plan of staff is one element between others.I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff liaison could gide us. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Wu Kuo-WeiSent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PMTo: Alissa CooperCc: ICG Coordination GroupSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment. 
Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道： Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8. Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
 It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separatethe policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long termstability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for thecareer development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status, IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan, and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than SLA, budget,..). Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop mycomment. Thanks. Kuo Wu 
 Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check. Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification. Alissa   _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
  _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org  _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org




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


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


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150914/bd9e7da0/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Sep 15 17:39:52 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:39:52 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public announcement for ICG F2F in Los Angeles
Message-ID: <00e501d0efdd$8804c810$980e5830$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

The public announcement for the in-person and remote participation details
have been posted on the ICG website and social media accounts:

 

Web site:
https://www.ianacg.org/icg-sixth-face-to-face-meeting-in-los-angeles/ 

FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1699381060290526

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/643841011379273729 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150915/b38a7088/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Tue Sep 15 19:23:32 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:23:32 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Food restrictions
Message-ID: <308150D4-1FCD-4E8A-87BA-51594F8D6116@frobbit.se>

All,

We are planning dinner Friday this week. Please let us know food restrictions so that we can investigate that restaurant can accommodate us.

We are looking for a place that can handle all of us and our restrictions, separate bills, and modest cost.

Let Jennifer know as soon as possible IF you have restrictions.

   Patrik





From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Sep 16 13:43:54 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:43:54 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix
Message-ID: <021001d0f085$bbe57c80$33b07580$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Attached and linked below please find the public comment matrix for your
review.

 

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1KpLF80 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/cebeee12/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-MASTER TEMPLATE-Combined.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 650368 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/cebeee12/attachment.xlsx>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Wed Sep 16 14:56:38 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:56:38 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix
In-Reply-To: <021001d0f085$bbe57c80$33b07580$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <18350720.429.1442415394925.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Dear Colleagues & Secretariat,

Comment 50, in Chinese, has entailed much more work than I thought (I did not receive any translation, so had to take care of that myself). It is also very long, covering all 12 Questions, so I am sending my analysis and suggested response as an attachment to this email (enclosed).

If I decided to treat Comment 50 as a separate exercise, it's because this is one of the first times that I have seen from China (where civil society or professional associations are careful in expressing opinions), an unambiguous, public and written support for the Multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. It makes clear that CONAC approves of the NTIA's criterion that oversight shall not be exercised by a State, group of States, or treaty organization. It also lauds the way the IANA functions are currently performed, and CONAC's expectation that future service will follow the same standards.

More later.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.






----- Mail original -----
De: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Septembre 2015 15:43:54
Objet: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix





Dear All, 



Attached and linked below please find the public comment matrix for your review. 



Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1KpLF80 



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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: JJS-analysis-of-comments-CONAC.1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 39936 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/0c6ae095/attachment.doc>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 16 15:50:01 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:50:01 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix
In-Reply-To: <18350720.429.1442415394925.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <18350720.429.1442415394925.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <914B568E-5460-4D82-A69B-284A87FAFD89@cooperw.in>

Hi Jean-Jacques,

Many thanks for your efforts. The translated version of this comment and most of the other non-English comments will be available later today.

The secretariat has not received the matrix with the rest of your analysis. We all looked for it in Dropbox but could not find it. Please send it to the secretariat as an attachment so they can incorporate it into the consolidated matrix.

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues & Secretariat,
> 
> Comment 50, in Chinese, has entailed much more work than I thought (I did not receive any translation, so had to take care of that myself). It is also very long, covering all 12 Questions, so I am sending my analysis and suggested response as an attachment to this email (enclosed).
> 
> If I decided to treat Comment 50 as a separate exercise, it's because this is one of the first times that I have seen from China (where civil society or professional associations are careful in expressing opinions), an unambiguous, public and written support for the Multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. It makes clear that CONAC approves of the NTIA's criterion that oversight shall not be exercised by a State, group of States, or treaty organization. It also lauds the way the IANA functions are currently performed, and CONAC's expectation that future service will follow the same standards.
> 
> More later.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>
> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Septembre 2015 15:43:54
> Objet: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All, 
> 
> 
> 
> Attached and linked below please find the public comment matrix for your review. 
> 
> 
> 
> Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1KpLF80 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> <JJS-analysis-of-comments-CONAC.1.doc>_______________________________________________
> 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 Sep 16 17:21:40 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:21:40 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] OC roles during implementation phase
In-Reply-To: <A3FC62E2-5B18-43AF-AE89-65BBC117F6B4@cooperw.in>
References: <A3FC62E2-5B18-43AF-AE89-65BBC117F6B4@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <66F8DD1F-0F30-4C88-B998-D0B5A926C01F@piuha.net>


> I have a request to make as a follow-up to something I said on the recent call. I think it would be useful for the ICG to understand if the OCs have an idea of what they expect their role to be during the proposal implementation phase. If we could get that information from the OC reps before the F2F, I think it would help facilitate our discussion of what the ICG role should be, if any. So I’d like to ask Jari, Paul, Alan, Martin, Wolf-Ulrich, and Milton if you could provide whatever information is available along these lines from your respective OCs. I realize that on the one hand some implementation work is already ongoing and on the other hand the OCs may not have discussed their own roles much, so whatever information you feel is appropriate to provide would be appreciated.

I approached this question from my own perspective and with knowledge of ongoing activities, rather than, e.g., trying to establish an IETF our leadership team opinion on what the role of the OCs is. In other words, I’m speaking personally but with some visibility into how we generally approach things.

From my perspective our OC, IETF, feels responsibility for our part, protocol parameters, as a whole. That is, we want to be involved in the entire lifecycle, from early discussions to planning of changes to implementation to daily operations. Obviously not alone, working with IANA and others. For instance, when an operational issue comes up, such as an RFC disagrees with IANA registry, we dig through the issue with the help of our community and IANA, and fix the registry or the RFC or both. Working with you all on the transition planning. And so on.

Anyway, the IETF as a whole is similarly involved in the implementation phase of any changes from the transition, just like we’ve done with any previous changes. For instance, we would be a party in revisions to the yearly service level agreement that is from our perspective one implementation step for our part of the transition. ICANN would be the other party in this case, as soon as there’s a general go-ahead for for any changes (even if the changes to our service level agreement are not big, they are more akin to the kind of changes we’d be making operationally every year).

Similarly, the IETF would be a party to any IPR arrangements, along with the other OCs and ICANN. As noted there’s been discussions of that; work is ongoing.

So we would definitely be involved in all steps touching protocol parameters. But it is important to understand the division of work within the IETF organisation. We generally involve our community when there is a policy or high-level direction question. This is what we did with the overall transition plan. Not all questions go through IANAPLAN WG, however, some issues are just operational or legal arrangements and within the previously set direction. These are topics that the IAB, IAOC and the IETF Trust would handle within their respective roles. The IAOC, for instance, is ultimately responsible for approving contracts to be signed. The IESG also has much of the operational responsibility for resolving daily technical question marks.

Bigger changes - for instance, significant new arrangements with IETF Trust  - would certainly be confirmed with the community. We did that early on when we asked if our community would be OK with the arrangement suggested by the RIRs. Further checks may be needed as the matter progresses.

I don’t speak for the other communities, but I suspect their answers probably are similar. They need to be ultimately responsible for implementation steps and decisions on their side. The work is divided among the WGs created for the transition planning and the leadership teams and staff; the latter  needs to execute the instructions the community has provided in their plan.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/25461494/attachment.sig>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Wed Sep 16 18:13:44 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:13:44 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix
In-Reply-To: <914B568E-5460-4D82-A69B-284A87FAFD89@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <29789472.518.1442427221442.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Dear Alissa & All,
here's the rest of my contribution (analysis of 26 comments), enclosed in zip form as ICG-public-comment-matrix-BLANK-MB-JJS-2 

Jennifer & Yannis, 
earlier today I sent my analysis of Comment 50, in the form of a separate document: did you receive it, and can you fit it into the matrix? Many thanks.

Alissa & Jennifer,
I've translated all the non-English comments assigned to me, so they're no longer necessary. Only exception: Comment 142 is in Spanish, which I do not feel confident enough to deal with. Please assign to someone else, or provide translation.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.








----- Mail original -----
De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
Cc: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>, internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Septembre 2015 17:50:01
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix

Hi Jean-Jacques,

Many thanks for your efforts. The translated version of this comment and most of the other non-English comments will be available later today.

The secretariat has not received the matrix with the rest of your analysis. We all looked for it in Dropbox but could not find it. Please send it to the secretariat as an attachment so they can incorporate it into the consolidated matrix.

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues & Secretariat,
> 
> Comment 50, in Chinese, has entailed much more work than I thought (I did not receive any translation, so had to take care of that myself). It is also very long, covering all 12 Questions, so I am sending my analysis and suggested response as an attachment to this email (enclosed).
> 
> If I decided to treat Comment 50 as a separate exercise, it's because this is one of the first times that I have seen from China (where civil society or professional associations are careful in expressing opinions), an unambiguous, public and written support for the Multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. It makes clear that CONAC approves of the NTIA's criterion that oversight shall not be exercised by a State, group of States, or treaty organization. It also lauds the way the IANA functions are currently performed, and CONAC's expectation that future service will follow the same standards.
> 
> More later.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>
> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Septembre 2015 15:43:54
> Objet: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All, 
> 
> 
> 
> Attached and linked below please find the public comment matrix for your review. 
> 
> 
> 
> Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1KpLF80 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> <JJS-analysis-of-comments-CONAC.1.doc>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-BLANK-MB-JJS-2 .zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 296087 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/562fe28d/attachment.zip>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Sep 16 18:30:50 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:30:50 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix
In-Reply-To: <29789472.518.1442427221442.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <914B568E-5460-4D82-A69B-284A87FAFD89@cooperw.in>
	<29789472.518.1442427221442.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <002601d0f0ad$d39d3c50$7ad7b4f0$@icgsec.asia>

Thank you Jean-Jacques, confirming receipt of this zip file and also Comment 50 (as a separate document).  We will make sure your review comments are added to the matrix and we will recirculate to all.

The translations are due to be delivered today from the ICANN translators (with one exception), I will circulate these on the list as soon as we receive them.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 2:14 PM
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix

Dear Alissa & All,
here's the rest of my contribution (analysis of 26 comments), enclosed in zip form as ICG-public-comment-matrix-BLANK-MB-JJS-2 

Jennifer & Yannis, 
earlier today I sent my analysis of Comment 50, in the form of a separate document: did you receive it, and can you fit it into the matrix? Many thanks.

Alissa & Jennifer,
I've translated all the non-English comments assigned to me, so they're no longer necessary. Only exception: Comment 142 is in Spanish, which I do not feel confident enough to deal with. Please assign to someone else, or provide translation.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.








----- Mail original -----
De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
Cc: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>, internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Septembre 2015 17:50:01
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix

Hi Jean-Jacques,

Many thanks for your efforts. The translated version of this comment and most of the other non-English comments will be available later today.

The secretariat has not received the matrix with the rest of your analysis. We all looked for it in Dropbox but could not find it. Please send it to the secretariat as an attachment so they can incorporate it into the consolidated matrix.

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues & Secretariat,
> 
> Comment 50, in Chinese, has entailed much more work than I thought (I did not receive any translation, so had to take care of that myself). It is also very long, covering all 12 Questions, so I am sending my analysis and suggested response as an attachment to this email (enclosed).
> 
> If I decided to treat Comment 50 as a separate exercise, it's because this is one of the first times that I have seen from China (where civil society or professional associations are careful in expressing opinions), an unambiguous, public and written support for the Multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. It makes clear that CONAC approves of the NTIA's criterion that oversight shall not be exercised by a State, group of States, or treaty organization. It also lauds the way the IANA functions are currently performed, and CONAC's expectation that future service will follow the same standards.
> 
> More later.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>
> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Septembre 2015 15:43:54
> Objet: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All, 
> 
> 
> 
> Attached and linked below please find the public comment matrix for your review. 
> 
> 
> 
> Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1KpLF80 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> <JJS-analysis-of-comments-CONAC.1.doc>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org




From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Sep 16 19:19:24 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:19:24 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] OC roles during implementation phase
In-Reply-To: <66F8DD1F-0F30-4C88-B998-D0B5A926C01F@piuha.net>
References: <A3FC62E2-5B18-43AF-AE89-65BBC117F6B4@cooperw.in>
	<66F8DD1F-0F30-4C88-B998-D0B5A926C01F@piuha.net>
Message-ID: <851ED6C7E23149319CE3F226053F4EAE@WUKPC>

As you correctly say, Jari, the approach from the names community - at least 
the g-part I'm with - should be similar.

If I'm right the point came up already during the CWG chartering phase but 
wasn't incorporated there. But this doesn't mean that it could'nt be 
discussed there. Anyway there shall be a bottom-up process within the 
g-community as usual to decide on engagement for the implementation phase.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Jari Arkko
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:21 PM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] OC roles during implementation phase

_______________________________________________
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 Sep 16 20:48:36 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:48:36 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Translations for public comments received
	(submissions 50, 80, 95)
Message-ID: <006701d0f0c1$104ab430$30e01c90$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the translations to submissions 50, 80 and 95.  

 

The Secretariat will process these and include into the matrix and web site.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Hillary Jett [mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:56 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Cc: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>; admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: Re: Translations for public comments received

 

Hi Jennifer,

 

Please find attached translations of:

*	Submission 50
*	Submission 80
*	Submission 95

I will continue to forward submissions as they are received.

 

Thanks!

Hillary

 

-- 

Hillary Jett

Communications Coordinator

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

 

Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403

Email: hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> 

 

 

 

From: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> >
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 8:09 PM
To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> >
Cc: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org> >, "admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> " <admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> >
Subject: RE: Translations for public comments received

 

No worries, I was just trying to find the actual comment and was about to ask Jandyr (Brazil GAC rep) for help.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Hillary Jett [mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 7:58 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> >
Cc: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org> >; admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> 
Subject: Re: Translations for public comments received

 

Oh Jennifer, apologies! I mislabeled the request with our translation team. The comment is from the Colombian government.

 

Sorry for the confusion! 


Sent from my iPhone


On Sep 15, 2015, at 7:52 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> > wrote:

Hi Hillary,

 

I was looking through our correspondence regarding translations for ICG public comments received – I do not believe I sent over a comment from the Brazilian Govt:  please see the table below

 

To recap for our records, in total we have the following outstanding translations: 4 Chinese comments, 3 Spanish comments (see table below):

 


50 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission50.pdf> 

钻张

China-cn

China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC)

Chinese submission


80 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission80.pdf> 

GUO Feng

China-cn

CAICT

Chinese submission


95 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission95.pdf> 

睿钟

 China-cn

Internet Society of China

Chinese submission


124 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission124.pdf> 

Manuel Haces-Aviña

 Mexico-mx

NIC México, Gerente de Prospectiva

Spanish submission (CORRECTED)


139 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission139.pdf> 

Ricardo Pedraza-Barrios

 Colombia-co

Columbian Government

Spanish submission


142 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission142.pdf> 

Juan Carlos Hernández Wocker

 By Email

Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT)

Spanish submission


159 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission159.pdf> 

Joyce Zheng

 China-cn

Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd.

Chinese submission

 

Did you mean that the Colombian govt comment will be delivered late?

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 7:22 PM
To: 'Hillary Jett' <hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> >; 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org> >
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> 
Subject: RE: Translations for public comments received

 

Hi Hillary,

 

Thanks for the update, appreciate the heads up regarding the ETA for certain submissions.  I will forward this to the chairs right now.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Hillary Jett [mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:38 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> >; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org> >
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> 
Subject: Re: Translations for public comments received

 

Hi Jennifer,

 

A quick update —

 

As of now we should have all comments back tomorrow prior to the ICG face-to-face based on my discussions with our translation team except for one. I’ve received notice from our outside contractors that due to high volume of content to be translated, the Brazilian government submission will not be able to be delivered until Friday, 18 September.

 

I apologize for any inconvenience this might cause. I will forward to you once it is received.

 

Thank you,

Hillary 

 

-- 

Hillary Jett

Communications Coordinator

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

 

Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403

Email: hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> 

 

 

 

From: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> >
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 1:55 PM
To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> >, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org> >
Cc: "admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> " <admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> >
Subject: RE: Translations for public comments received

 

Thank you Hillary for the confirmation.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Hillary Jett [mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:51 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> >; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org> >
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> 
Subject: Re: Translations for public comments received

 

Hi Jennifer,

 

Thank you for this. All comments have been sent to translation with a requested return date of Wednesday, September 16.

 

I will forward you comments as they are received.

 

Thanks!

Hillary

 

-- 

Hillary Jett

Communications Coordinator

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

 

Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403

Email: hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> 

 

 

 

From: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> >
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 1:39 PM
To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> >, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org> >
Cc: "admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> " <admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> >
Subject: RE: Translations for public comments received

 

Hi Hillary,

 

As mentioned on Skype, the ICG decided on their call last night that all unconfirmed comments (that was not SPAM) was to be processed.  In these are is one more Chinese submission as follows (and attached)

 


159 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission159.pdf> 

Joyce Zheng

 

Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd.

Chinese comment

 

I know that we have sent these over in batches so I understand if the ETA may not be the same for all the translations – please do advise if this is the case so I may be able to update the chairs as necessary.

 

 

To recap for our records, in total we have the following outstanding translations: 4 Chinese comments, 3 Spanish comments (see table below):

 


50 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission50.pdf> 

钻张

China-cn

China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC)

Chinese submission


80 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission80.pdf> 

GUO Feng

China-cn

CAICT

Chinese submission


95 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission95.pdf> 

睿钟

 China-cn

Internet Society of China

Chinese submission


124 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission124.pdf> 

Manuel Haces-Aviña

 Mexico-mx

NIC México, Gerente de Prospectiva

Spanish submission (CORRECTED)


139 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission139.pdf> 

Ricardo Pedraza-Barrios

 Colombia-co

Columbian Government

Spanish submission


142 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission142.pdf> 

Juan Carlos Hernández Wocker

 By Email

Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT)

Spanish submission


159 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission159.pdf> 

Joyce Zheng

 China-cn

Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd.

Chinese submission

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 4:20 PM
To: 'Hillary Jett' <hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> >; 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org> >
Cc: 'admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:'admin at icgsec.asia> ' <admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> >
Subject: RE: Translations for public comments received

 

Hi Hillary,

 

As mentioned on Skype, here are the additional Spanish comments for translation (2 late submissions and 1 correction).

 

I have also attached the 3 comments this time, because the vendor may have already pulled the old version of 124 from the link.

 

 


 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission124.pdf> 124

Manuel Haces-Aviña

 

NIC México, Gerente de Prospectiva

Spanish submission corrected


139 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission139.pdf> 

Ricardo Pedraza-Barrios

 

Columbian Government

Spanish comment


142 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission142.pdf> 

Juan Carlos Hernández Wocker

 

Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT)

Spanish comment

 

To recap, there is a total of 3 Chinese comments (from the previous email), and 3 Spanish comments (in this email) that need translation.  If possible, please ask the translator/vendor to use the NEW and corrected version of 124 as attached in this email.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Hillary Jett [mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 11:05 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> >; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org> >
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> 
Subject: Re: Translations for public comments received

 

Thanks Jennifer — we’ll get these sent over to translation! 

 

-- 

Hillary Jett

Communications Coordinator

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

 

Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403

Email: hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> 

 

 

 

From: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> >
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:45 AM
To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> >, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org> >
Cc: "admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> " <admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> >
Subject: Translations for public comments received

 

Hi Hillary and Alice,

 

Attached are the comments we have received that need translation.  Could you please submit these to the translation team for processing?  Could you also let us know what the ETA may be (bearing in mind that the ICG will be meeting face-to-face at the end of next week).  Thank you for your help!

 


50 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission50.pdf> 

钻张

China-cn

China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC)

Chinese submission


80 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission80.pdf> 

GUO Feng

 

CAICT

Chinese submission


95 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission95.pdf> 

睿钟

 

Internet Society of China

Chinese submission


124 <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission124.pdf> 

Manuel Haces-Aviña

 

NIC México, Gerente de Prospectiva

Spanish submission

 

I have included the relevant rows of our matrix above – the submission is linked on the number.  For your reference, the comments that require translation are submissions 50, 80, 95, 124.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/40bd6720/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submission50.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 13361 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/40bd6720/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submission80.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 18209 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/40bd6720/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submission95.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/40bd6720/attachment-0002.docx>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 16 22:26:17 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:26:17 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] F2F #6 - Day 1 agenda
Message-ID: <0E4B6FEE-D5EA-47C1-8600-1B59B9448050@cooperw.in>

Hi all,

Below is a proposed agenda for day 1 of our F2F meeting. I am working my way through the matrix to help organize our discussions and will aim to have an agenda for day 2 and a slide deck for our use across both days available by mid-day on Thursday.

Alissa


== Day 1 - Sept 18, 2015 ==

9:00 - 9:30
Welcome
Agenda
Overview of comments received
Comment analysis process

9:30 - 9:45
Determine general support for moving forward

9:45 - 10:30
Comment analysis

10:30 – 11:00
Break 

11:00 - 13:00
Comment analysis

13:00 - 14:00
Working lunch
Editorial clarifications ICG can make

14:00 - 15:00
Dependency on CCWG
- Update on CCWG status from liaisons
- Way forward for ICG

15:00 - 15:30
Comment analysis

15:30 – 16:00 
Break

16:00 - 16:45
Comment analysis

16:45 - 17:00
Wrap-up

Evening: Secretariat is working on identifying a bar where those who are interested might congregate for an informal gathering.




From paf at frobbit.se  Wed Sep 16 22:32:14 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:32:14 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] F2F #6 - Day 1 agenda
In-Reply-To: <0E4B6FEE-D5EA-47C1-8600-1B59B9448050@cooperw.in>
References: <0E4B6FEE-D5EA-47C1-8600-1B59B9448050@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <93BA1D25-03B7-4AEB-BD41-79674C56E642@frobbit.se>

On 16 Sep 2015, at 15:26, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Evening: Secretariat is working on identifying a bar where those who are interested might congregate for an informal gathering.

Let me clarify a bit.

Yes, we had planned to find a restaurant, but that failed. We could not find a good restaurant that could for example accept split bill.

So at the moment, if things do not change fast, we "just" will give the name of a place where interested people can gather.

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/999018bd/attachment.sig>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Wed Sep 16 23:42:09 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:42:09 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment matrix
In-Reply-To: <021001d0f085$bbe57c80$33b07580$@icgsec.asia>
References: <021001d0f085$bbe57c80$33b07580$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <55F9FE51.6000709@oracle.com>

apologies, got the last two reviews in 89, 113.

Joe

On 9/16/2015 9:43 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Attached and linked below please find the public comment matrix for 
> your review.
>
> Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1KpLF80
>
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/41fa2bb9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-FOR-ICG-REVIEWenterjha.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 264233 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/41fa2bb9/attachment.xlsx>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 17 00:10:38 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:10:38 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Slides for F2F - work-in-progress
Message-ID: <E4CC22D6-B184-41E6-81D8-C4DAEA628A39@cooperw.in>

I’m working on a slide deck to help guide our discussion at the F2F (attached). I wanted to share a work-in-progress version since I know folks are traveling. I will continue working on this overnight Pacific time tonight and tomorrow but will be taking a short break from it now, so I thought it would be a good time to share it. 

Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-F2F-6-v0.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 205400 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150916/02dce345/attachment.pptx>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Thu Sep 17 08:56:04 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:56:04 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] F2F #6 - Day 1 agenda
In-Reply-To: <0E4B6FEE-D5EA-47C1-8600-1B59B9448050@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <27237061.620.1442480161970.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Hello Alissa & All,
as indicated several weeks ago, as I am unable to be in California for our meeting, so I will join by remote participation. Note: time zone here in France is California +9 hours.

Hello 
Jennifer & Yannis,
could you please send me the details for remote participation? Thanks.

Jean-Jacques.









----- Mail original -----
De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 17 Septembre 2015 00:26:17
Objet: [Internal-cg] F2F #6 - Day 1 agenda

Hi all,

Below is a proposed agenda for day 1 of our F2F meeting. I am working my way through the matrix to help organize our discussions and will aim to have an agenda for day 2 and a slide deck for our use across both days available by mid-day on Thursday.

Alissa


== Day 1 - Sept 18, 2015 ==

9:00 - 9:30
Welcome
Agenda
Overview of comments received
Comment analysis process

9:30 - 9:45
Determine general support for moving forward

9:45 - 10:30
Comment analysis

10:30 – 11:00
Break 

11:00 - 13:00
Comment analysis

13:00 - 14:00
Working lunch
Editorial clarifications ICG can make

14:00 - 15:00
Dependency on CCWG
- Update on CCWG status from liaisons
- Way forward for ICG

15:00 - 15:30
Comment analysis

15:30 – 16:00 
Break

16:00 - 16:45
Comment analysis

16:45 - 17:00
Wrap-up

Evening: Secretariat is working on identifying a bar where those who are interested might congregate for an informal gathering.



_______________________________________________
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 Sep 17 09:03:25 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:03:25 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Translations for public comments
	received	(submissions 50, 80, 95)
In-Reply-To: <006701d0f0c1$104ab430$30e01c90$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <32524660.643.1442480604868.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Dear Jennifer,

thanks for forwarding. Submission 50 contains the respondent's views ONLY IN CHINESE, the translation into English is not there.

However, as indicated in an earlier email, I did the translation and analysis of Submission 50, so there is no longer any need for a translation from ICANN's Linguistic Service.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.









----- Mail original -----
De: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Septembre 2015 22:48:36
Objet: [Internal-cg] Translations for public comments received	(submissions 50, 80, 95)





Dear All, 



Please find the translations to submissions 50, 80 and 95. 



The Secretariat will process these and include into the matrix and web site. 



Best Regards, 



Jennifer 





From: Hillary Jett [mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:56 PM 
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> 
Cc: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>; admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: Re: Translations for public comments received 






Hi Jennifer, 





Please find attached translations of: 

    * Submission 50 
    * Submission 80 
    * Submission 95 




I will continue to forward submissions as they are received. 





Thanks! 


Hillary 






-- 



Hillary Jett 


Communications Coordinator 


Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 





Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 


Email: hillary.jett at icann.org 












From: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec.asia > 
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 8:09 PM 
To: Hillary Jett < hillary.jett at icann.org > 
Cc: Alice Jansen < alice.jansen at icann.org >, " admin at icgsec.asia " < admin at icgsec.asia > 
Subject: RE: Translations for public comments received 






No worries, I was just trying to find the actual comment and was about to ask Jandyr (Brazil GAC rep) for help. 



Thanks for the clarification. 



Best Regards, 



Jennifer 





From: Hillary Jett [ mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org ] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 7:58 PM 
To: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec.asia > 
Cc: Alice Jansen < alice.jansen at icann.org >; admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: Re: Translations for public comments received 




Oh Jennifer, apologies! I mislabeled the request with our translation team. The comment is from the Colombian government. 





Sorry for the confusion! 



Sent from my iPhone 



On Sep 15, 2015, at 7:52 PM, Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec.asia > wrote: 




Hi Hillary, 



I was looking through our correspondence regarding translations for ICG public comments received – I do not believe I sent over a comment from the Brazilian Govt: please see the table below 



To recap for our records, in total we have the following outstanding translations: 4 Chinese comments, 3 Spanish comments (see table below): 



50 	

钻张 	

China-cn 	

China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC) 	

Chinese submission 


80 	

GUO Feng 	

China-cn 	

CAICT 	

Chinese submission 


95 	

睿 钟 	

China-cn 	

Internet Society of China 	

Chinese submission 


124 	

Manuel Haces-Aviña 	

Mexico-mx 	

NIC México, Gerente de Prospectiva 	

Spanish submission (CORRECTED) 


139 	

Ricardo Pedraza-Barrios 	

Colombia-co 	

Columbian Government 	

Spanish submission 


142 	

Juan Carlos Hernández Wocker 	

By Email 	

Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT) 	

Spanish submission 


159 	

Joyce Zheng 	

China-cn 	

Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. 	

Chinese submission 



Did you mean that the Colombian govt comment will be delivered late? 



Best Regards, 



Jennifer 





From: Jennifer Chung [ mailto:jen at icgsec.asia ] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 7:22 PM 
To: 'Hillary Jett' < hillary.jett at icann.org >; 'Alice Jansen' < alice.jansen at icann.org > 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: RE: Translations for public comments received 



Hi Hillary, 



Thanks for the update, appreciate the heads up regarding the ETA for certain submissions. I will forward this to the chairs right now. 



Best Regards, 



Jennifer 





From: Hillary Jett [ mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org ] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:38 PM 
To: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec.asia >; Alice Jansen < alice.jansen at icann.org > 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: Re: Translations for public comments received 






Hi Jennifer, 





A quick update — 





As of now we should have all comments back tomorrow prior to the ICG face-to-face based on my discussions with our translation team except for one. I’ve received notice from our outside contractors that due to high volume of content to be translated, the Brazilian government submission will not be able to be delivered until Friday, 18 September. 





I apologize for any inconvenience this might cause. I will forward to you once it is received. 





Thank you, 


Hillary 






-- 



Hillary Jett 


Communications Coordinator 


Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 





Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 


Email: hillary.jett at icann.org 












From: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec.asia > 
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 1:55 PM 
To: Hillary Jett < hillary.jett at icann.org >, Alice Jansen < alice.jansen at icann.org > 
Cc: " admin at icgsec.asia " < admin at icgsec.asia > 
Subject: RE: Translations for public comments received 






Thank you Hillary for the confirmation. 



Best Regards, 



Jennifer 





From: Hillary Jett [ mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org ] 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:51 PM 
To: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec.asia >; Alice Jansen < alice.jansen at icann.org > 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: Re: Translations for public comments received 





Hi Jennifer, 





Thank you for this. All comments have been sent to translation with a requested return date of Wednesday, September 16. 





I will forward you comments as they are received. 





Thanks! 


Hillary 






-- 



Hillary Jett 


Communications Coordinator 


Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 





Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 


Email: hillary.jett at icann.org 












From: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec.asia > 
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 1:39 PM 
To: Hillary Jett < hillary.jett at icann.org >, Alice Jansen < alice.jansen at icann.org > 
Cc: " admin at icgsec.asia " < admin at icgsec.asia > 
Subject: RE: Translations for public comments received 






Hi Hillary, 



As mentioned on Skype, the ICG decided on their call last night that all unconfirmed comments (that was not SPAM) was to be processed. In these are is one more Chinese submission as follows (and attached) 



159 	

Joyce Zheng 	

	

Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. 	

Chinese comment 



I know that we have sent these over in batches so I understand if the ETA may not be the same for all the translations – please do advise if this is the case so I may be able to update the chairs as necessary. 





To recap for our records, in total we have the following outstanding translations: 4 Chinese comments, 3 Spanish comments (see table below): 



50 	

钻张 	

China-cn 	

China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC) 	

Chinese submission 


80 	

GUO Feng 	

China-cn 	

CAICT 	

Chinese submission 


95 	

睿 钟 	

China-cn 	

Internet Society of China 	

Chinese submission 


124 	

Manuel Haces-Aviña 	

Mexico-mx 	

NIC México, Gerente de Prospectiva 	

Spanish submission (CORRECTED) 


139 	

Ricardo Pedraza-Barrios 	

Colombia-co 	

Columbian Government 	

Spanish submission 


142 	

Juan Carlos Hernández Wocker 	

By Email 	

Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT) 	

Spanish submission 


159 	

Joyce Zheng 	

China-cn 	

Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. 	

Chinese submission 



Please let me know if you have any questions. 



Best Regards, 



Jennifer 





From: Jennifer Chung [ mailto:jen at icgsec.asia ] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 4:20 PM 
To: 'Hillary Jett' < hillary.jett at icann.org >; 'Alice Jansen' < alice.jansen at icann.org > 
Cc: 'admin at icgsec.asia ' < admin at icgsec.asia > 
Subject: RE: Translations for public comments received 



Hi Hillary, 



As mentioned on Skype, here are the additional Spanish comments for translation (2 late submissions and 1 correction). 



I have also attached the 3 comments this time, because the vendor may have already pulled the old version of 124 from the link. 





124 	

Manuel Haces-Aviña 	

	

NIC México, Gerente de Prospectiva 	

Spanish submission corrected 


139 	

Ricardo Pedraza-Barrios 	

	

Columbian Government 	

Spanish comment 


142 	

Juan Carlos Hernández Wocker 	

	

Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT) 	

Spanish comment 



To recap, there is a total of 3 Chinese comments (from the previous email), and 3 Spanish comments (in this email) that need translation. If possible, please ask the translator/vendor to use the NEW and corrected version of 124 as attached in this email. 



Please let me know if you have any questions. 



Best Regards, 



Jennifer 





From: Hillary Jett [ mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org ] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 11:05 AM 
To: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec.asia >; Alice Jansen < alice.jansen at icann.org > 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: Re: Translations for public comments received 






Thanks Jennifer — we’ll get these sent over to translation! 






-- 



Hillary Jett 


Communications Coordinator 


Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 





Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 


Email: hillary.jett at icann.org 












From: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec.asia > 
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:45 AM 
To: Hillary Jett < hillary.jett at icann.org >, Alice Jansen < alice.jansen at icann.org > 
Cc: " admin at icgsec.asia " < admin at icgsec.asia > 
Subject: Translations for public comments received 






Hi Hillary and Alice, 



Attached are the comments we have received that need translation. Could you please submit these to the translation team for processing? Could you also let us know what the ETA may be (bearing in mind that the ICG will be meeting face-to-face at the end of next week). Thank you for your help! 



50 	

钻张 	

China-cn 	

China Organizational Name Administration Center (CONAC) 	

Chinese submission 


80 	

GUO Feng 	

	

CAICT 	

Chinese submission 


95 	

睿 钟 	

	

Internet Society of China 	

Chinese submission 


124 	

Manuel Haces-Aviña 	

	

NIC México, Gerente de Prospectiva 	

Spanish submission 



I have included the relevant rows of our matrix above – the submission is linked on the number. For your reference, the comments that require translation are submissions 50, 80, 95, 124. 



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 Sep 17 09:08:33 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 05:08:33 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG F2F LA meeting: agenda, updated matrix,
	and preparatory materials
Message-ID: <018001d0f128$70b76f40$52264dc0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

In preparation for the LA F2F meeting on Friday 18- Saturday 19 Sept.
Attached are the following materials for your review:

 

1. Draft Agenda for both days

2. Slide deck

3. Updated public comment matrix

 

Also included are:

3 additional submission files: Submission 71-s (late), translations for
Submissions 80 and 95 (these have been posted on the web archive as well:
http://icgsec.asia/1P1Telp )

 

For ICG members not able to join in person, remote participation details are
available on the public announcement: http://icgsec.asia/1NBiykG 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Safe travels and see most of you soon in L.A. !

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/4ba8b261/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG Meeting 6 agenda-v1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 71452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/4ba8b261/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-F2F-6-v1-jc.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 438027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/4ba8b261/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-MASTER TEMPLATE-REVISED.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 572504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/4ba8b261/attachment.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submission80_EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 41601 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/4ba8b261/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submission95_EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 60774 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/4ba8b261/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submission71-s.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 292390 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/4ba8b261/attachment-0004.pdf>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Sep 17 09:17:16 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 05:17:16 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Translations for public comments
	received	(submissions 50, 80, 95)
In-Reply-To: <32524660.643.1442480604868.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <006701d0f0c1$104ab430$30e01c90$@icgsec.asia>
	<32524660.643.1442480604868.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <019c01d0f129$a67939a0$f36bace0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Jean-Jacques and all,

The Secretariat will follow up with the ICANN languages team to ensure that we receive the remaining translations.  As the translation request was placed a week ago, Submission 50 will have already been processed for the ICG.

For clarification, to-date we have received translations for Submission 12, 80 and 95.  We have more translations forth-coming.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer



-----Original Message-----
From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 5:03 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Translations for public comments received (submissions 50, 80, 95)

Dear Jennifer,

thanks for forwarding. Submission 50 contains the respondent's views ONLY IN CHINESE, the translation into English is not there.

However, as indicated in an earlier email, I did the translation and analysis of Submission 50, so there is no longer any need for a translation from ICANN's Linguistic Service.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.









----- Mail original -----
De: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Septembre 2015 22:48:36
Objet: [Internal-cg] Translations for public comments received	(submissions 50, 80, 95)





Dear All, 



Please find the translations to submissions 50, 80 and 95. 



The Secretariat will process these and include into the matrix and web site. 



Best Regards, 



Jennifer 





From: Hillary Jett [mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:56 PM 
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> 
Cc: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>; admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: Re: Translations for public comments received 






Hi Jennifer, 





Please find attached translations of: 

    * Submission 50 
    * Submission 80 
    * Submission 95 




I will continue to forward submissions as they are received. 





Thanks! 


Hillary 






-- 



Hillary Jett 


Communications Coordinator 


Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 












From: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec.asia > 




From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Sep 17 09:30:41 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 05:30:41 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] F2F #6 - Day 1 agenda
In-Reply-To: <27237061.620.1442480161970.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <0E4B6FEE-D5EA-47C1-8600-1B59B9448050@cooperw.in>
	<27237061.620.1442480161970.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <01a001d0f12b$86cb69f0$94623dd0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Jean-Jacques and all,

By now you will have received an update to your calendar invites for the ICG F2F LA meeting.

In addition, remote participation details are available on the public announcement link here: http://icgsec.asia/1NBiykG 

And also as follows:

Time zone conversion Day 1: http://icgsec.asia/1isZusf 
Time zone conversion Day 2: http://icgsec.asia/1USrfvn  

Remote participation:

Virtual Meeting Room – https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/ 
Audio/Bridge Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ 

AR – Conference ID: 82855066
EN – Conference ID: 9295725
ES – Conference ID: 68385764
FR – Conference ID: 75929475
PT – Conference ID: 759752
RU – Conference ID: 345720
ZH – Conference ID: 825702

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer



-----Original Message-----
From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 4:56 AM
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>; Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] F2F #6 - Day 1 agenda

Hello Alissa & All,
as indicated several weeks ago, as I am unable to be in California for our meeting, so I will join by remote participation. Note: time zone here in France is California +9 hours.

Hello 
Jennifer & Yannis,
could you please send me the details for remote participation? Thanks.

Jean-Jacques.









----- Mail original -----
De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 17 Septembre 2015 00:26:17
Objet: [Internal-cg] F2F #6 - Day 1 agenda

Hi all,

Below is a proposed agenda for day 1 of our F2F meeting. I am working my way through the matrix to help organize our discussions and will aim to have an agenda for day 2 and a slide deck for our use across both days available by mid-day on Thursday.

Alissa


== Day 1 - Sept 18, 2015 ==

9:00 - 9:30
Welcome
Agenda
Overview of comments received
Comment analysis process

9:30 - 9:45
Determine general support for moving forward

9:45 - 10:30
Comment analysis

10:30 – 11:00
Break 

11:00 - 13:00
Comment analysis

13:00 - 14:00
Working lunch
Editorial clarifications ICG can make

14:00 - 15:00
Dependency on CCWG
- Update on CCWG status from liaisons
- Way forward for ICG

15:00 - 15:30
Comment analysis

15:30 – 16:00 
Break

16:00 - 16:45
Comment analysis

16:45 - 17:00
Wrap-up

Evening: Secretariat is working on identifying a bar where those who are interested might congregate for an informal gathering.



_______________________________________________
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  Thu Sep 17 15:01:42 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:01:42 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Slides for F2F - work-in-progress
In-Reply-To: <E4CC22D6-B184-41E6-81D8-C4DAEA628A39@cooperw.in>
References: <E4CC22D6-B184-41E6-81D8-C4DAEA628A39@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <6735D1FB-0737-4875-9D55-38D438831AC7@piuha.net>

Thanks, the deck gives a good way to frame the discussion and our process.

I will have more detailed comments on the substantive topics in the meeting.

For the non-substantive part of the slides I wanted to make a small observation that slide 3 should probably have some kind of disclaimer about inability to determine location perfectly, e.g., what continent did the IETF comments come from, for instance?

On slide 4, I’m not sure positive/negative/inconclusive and “non-english” fit together very well. Maybe you meant “not processed yet due to ongoing translation” or something similar. But otherwise a great slide!

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/faa8b934/attachment.sig>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Thu Sep 17 21:06:37 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:06:37 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG F2F LA meeting: agenda, updated matrix,
 and preparatory materials
In-Reply-To: <018001d0f128$70b76f40$52264dc0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <018001d0f128$70b76f40$52264dc0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <BY2PR07MB582246F2917AD858E0AECE6AC5A0@BY2PR07MB582.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Jennifer and all:
I hope this copy of the comment matrix is not being used as the final one. I went through it and it does  not combine all of the comments. An earlier version that you circulated Wednesday morning 9:45 (US Eastern time) combines them all - that is the one that should be sent out to the rest of the ICG members.

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 5:09 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG F2F LA meeting: agenda, updated matrix, and preparatory materials

Dear All,

In preparation for the LA F2F meeting on Friday 18- Saturday 19 Sept.  Attached are the following materials for your review:

1. Draft Agenda for both days
2. Slide deck
3. Updated public comment matrix

Also included are:
3 additional submission files: Submission 71-s (late), translations for Submissions 80 and 95 (these have been posted on the web archive as well: http://icgsec.asia/1P1Telp )

For ICG members not able to join in person, remote participation details are available on the public announcement: http://icgsec.asia/1NBiykG

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Safe travels and see most of you soon in L.A. !

Best Regards,

Jennifer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/02efcc8f/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 17 21:14:31 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:14:31 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG F2F LA meeting: agenda, updated matrix,
	and preparatory materials
In-Reply-To: <018001d0f128$70b76f40$52264dc0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <018001d0f128$70b76f40$52264dc0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <5596A0C1-E7C0-4241-9BEE-E6CF1BF792EE@cooperw.in>

Slightly updated deck is attached to address Jari’s comments.

Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lgt8ey8to1ycsfi/ICG-F2F-6-v2.pdf?dl=0

Alissa




> On Sep 17, 2015, at 2:08 AM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
>  
> In preparation for the LA F2F meeting on Friday 18- Saturday 19 Sept.  Attached are the following materials for your review:
>  
> 1. Draft Agenda for both days
> 2. Slide deck
> 3. Updated public comment matrix
>  
> Also included are:
> 3 additional submission files: Submission 71-s (late), translations for Submissions 80 and 95 (these have been posted on the web archive as well: http://icgsec.asia/1P1Telp <http://icgsec.asia/1P1Telp> )
>  
> For ICG members not able to join in person, remote participation details are available on the public announcement: http://icgsec.asia/1NBiykG <http://icgsec.asia/1NBiykG>
>  
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>  
> Safe travels and see most of you soon in L.A. !
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
> <ICG Meeting 6 agenda-v1.pdf><ICG-F2F-6-v1-jc.pdf><ICG-public-comment-matrix-MASTER TEMPLATE-REVISED.xlsx><submission80_EN.pdf><submission95_EN.pdf><submission71-s.pdf>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/ff247826/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-F2F-6-v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 265409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/ff247826/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150917/ff247826/attachment-0001.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 17 21:18:03 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:18:03 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Slides for F2F - work-in-progress
In-Reply-To: <6735D1FB-0737-4875-9D55-38D438831AC7@piuha.net>
References: <E4CC22D6-B184-41E6-81D8-C4DAEA628A39@cooperw.in>
	<6735D1FB-0737-4875-9D55-38D438831AC7@piuha.net>
Message-ID: <83B70AED-0F93-416D-B7F2-2DE900645217@cooperw.in>

Thanks Jari.

> On Sep 17, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, the deck gives a good way to frame the discussion and our process.
> 
> I will have more detailed comments on the substantive topics in the meeting.
> 
> For the non-substantive part of the slides I wanted to make a small observation that slide 3 should probably have some kind of disclaimer about inability to determine location perfectly, e.g., what continent did the IETF comments come from, for instance?

Regions are only listed where the commenter provided his or her country of origin, or where the region was obvious from the organization (e.g., governments). The “unknown” category captures all of the others, including the IETF IANAPLAN.

> 
> On slide 4, I’m not sure positive/negative/inconclusive and “non-english” fit together very well. Maybe you meant “not processed yet due to ongoing translation” or something similar. But otherwise a great slide!

Fixed.

Alissa

> 
> Jari
> 



From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Sep 17 23:59:01 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:59:01 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATE: remote participation information for the ICG
	F2F meeting 6 in LA
Message-ID: <015e01d0f1a4$d4039700$7c0ac500$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

I have just sent a calendar update regarding the remote participation information for the meeting.  The web site announcement has also been updated accordingly: http://icgsec.asia/1NBiykG 

Please note that only the EN phone bridge will be open:

Audio/Bridge Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ 
EN – Conference ID: 92957255


All other language streaming will be as follows:

English High Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-en.m3u 
 
English Low Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-en-lo.m3u 
 
French High Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-fr.m3u 
 
French Low Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-fr-lo.m3u 
  
Spanish High Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-es.m3u 
 
Spanish Low Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-es-lo.m3u 
  
Chinese High Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-zh.m3u 
 
Chinese Low Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-zh-lo.m3u 
 
Russian High Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ru.m3u 
 
Russian Low Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ru-lo.m3u 
 
Arabic High Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ar.m3u 
 
Arabic Low Bandwidth - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ar-lo.m3u 


Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,
Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 2:31 AM
To: 'Subrenat, Jean-Jacques' <jjs at dyalog.net>; 'Alissa Cooper' <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] F2F #6 - Day 1 agenda

Dear Jean-Jacques and all,

By now you will have received an update to your calendar invites for the ICG F2F LA meeting.

In addition, remote participation details are available on the public announcement link here: http://icgsec.asia/1NBiykG 

And also as follows:

Time zone conversion Day 1: http://icgsec.asia/1isZusf Time zone conversion Day 2: http://icgsec.asia/1USrfvn  

Remote participation:

Virtual Meeting Room – https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/
Audio/Bridge Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ 

AR – Conference ID: 82855066
EN – Conference ID: 92957255
ES – Conference ID: 68385764
FR – Conference ID: 75929475
PT – Conference ID: 759752
RU – Conference ID: 345720
ZH – Conference ID: 825702

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer



-----Original Message-----
From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 4:56 AM
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>; Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] F2F #6 - Day 1 agenda

Hello Alissa & All,
as indicated several weeks ago, as I am unable to be in California for our meeting, so I will join by remote participation. Note: time zone here in France is California +9 hours.

Hello
Jennifer & Yannis,
could you please send me the details for remote participation? Thanks.

Jean-Jacques.









----- Mail original -----
De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 17 Septembre 2015 00:26:17
Objet: [Internal-cg] F2F #6 - Day 1 agenda

Hi all,

Below is a proposed agenda for day 1 of our F2F meeting. I am working my way through the matrix to help organize our discussions and will aim to have an agenda for day 2 and a slide deck for our use across both days available by mid-day on Thursday.

Alissa


== Day 1 - Sept 18, 2015 ==

9:00 - 9:30
Welcome
Agenda
Overview of comments received
Comment analysis process

9:30 - 9:45
Determine general support for moving forward

9:45 - 10:30
Comment analysis

10:30 – 11:00
Break 

11:00 - 13:00
Comment analysis

13:00 - 14:00
Working lunch
Editorial clarifications ICG can make

14:00 - 15:00
Dependency on CCWG
- Update on CCWG status from liaisons
- Way forward for ICG

15:00 - 15:30
Comment analysis

15:30 – 16:00
Break

16:00 - 16:45
Comment analysis

16:45 - 17:00
Wrap-up

Evening: Secretariat is working on identifying a bar where those who are interested might congregate for an informal gathering.



_______________________________________________
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 Sep 18 18:38:36 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:38:36 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] New translations received - for submission 124 and
	submission 142
Message-ID: <033501d0f241$3ba94750$b2fbd5f0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear all,

 

We have received translations for two more submissions 124 and 142 - these
are now published on the ICG web archive here and also attached for your
convenience:

 

Short url to the ICG public comments archive: http://icgsec.asia/1P1Telp

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards, 

Jennifer

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150918/776b1bea/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submission124_EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 90898 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150918/776b1bea/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submission142_EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 254821 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150918/776b1bea/attachment-0001.pdf>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Fri Sep 18 19:44:47 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:44:47 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
Message-ID: <69819702-F438-40F3-9B8C-A889A34B8CC9@cooperw.in>

FYI, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has published its report on IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability -- http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-642

From jjs at dyalog.net  Fri Sep 18 20:39:55 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:39:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <69819702-F438-40F3-9B8C-A889A34B8CC9@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Alissa & All,

my impressions after reading the GAO paper:

- Would this be some sort of writing on the wall? Seen from far-away Europe, it looks like a political intervention ABOVE the level of NTIA. About the ICG Proposal on avoiding capture, GAO writes: "To address this risk, stakeholders proposed changes that would empower the multistakeholder community to veto board decisions related to ICANN's plans and budget and to remove board members, among other things" might be an indication of what the higher political echelons are looking at.

- GAO seems to have doubts about NTIA's ability to evaluate the Proposal against the core goals it set out in 2014: "NTIA has not yet determined how it will evaluate the proposal against the goals".

- GAO "identified frameworks for evaluation that could provide tools to guide NTIA's evaluation", but gives no details.

- The most important point is in the very last sentence, where GAO states that "The Department of Commerce concurred" with its recommendation to NTIA. As NTIA comes under DoC, this means that NTIA has no option but to follow the GAO Recommendation.

- GAO mistakenly states that "a consensus-based proposal they plan to provide to the ICANN board by late fall 2015. The board will then provide the proposal to NTIA". As we know, it has been agreed that ICG will address its Proposal to the NTIA through ICANN Board, without any alteration by the latter.

Again, seen from outside the USA, the GAO statement carries the risk of shifting the goalposts in the middle of the game. I think the ICG is entitled to more information about the methods and tools envisaged by GAO, as well as the possible outcomes (scenarios?).

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Septembre 2015 21:44:47
Objet: [Internal-cg] GAO report

FYI, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has published its report on IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability -- http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-642
_______________________________________________
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 Sep 18 20:54:10 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:54:10 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <55FC79F2.3000702@ripe.net>


Read it.

Whatever it says it should not deter us from just doing our work as
diligently and expeditiously as possible. Because if we don't, nothing
will happen. If we do, there is a possibility for change for the better.

Daniel


From jbladel at godaddy.com  Fri Sep 18 20:56:43 2015
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:56:43 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <55FC79F2.3000702@ripe.net>
References: <12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<55FC79F2.3000702@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <D221E493.91890%jbladel@godaddy.com>

Agre.  The GAO report is meant to inform Congress and NTIA.  I believe our
work (and that of the OCs) should proceed on course.

On 9/18/15, 15:54 , "Internal-cg on behalf of Daniel Karrenberg"
<internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org on behalf of daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
wrote:

>
>Read it.
>
>Whatever it says it should not deter us from just doing our work as
>diligently and expeditiously as possible. Because if we don't, nothing
>will happen. If we do, there is a possibility for change for the better.
>
>Daniel
>
>_______________________________________________
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From pwilson at apnic.net  Fri Sep 18 21:02:05 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 07:02:05 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <69819702-F438-40F3-9B8C-A889A34B8CC9@cooperw.in>
References: <69819702-F438-40F3-9B8C-A889A34B8CC9@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <84DFCE21-3371-41F2-9F72-915BA4FBB4EC@apnic.net>


I’m sure we’ll want this on the agenda for tomorrow.

Hope we can make time for discussion.

thanks,
Paul.




On 19 Sep 2015, at 5:44, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> FYI, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has published its 
> report on IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability -- 
> http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-642
> _______________________________________________
> 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 kdrazek at verisign.com  Fri Sep 18 21:13:51 2015
From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 21:13:51 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: ICG Update on CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549925B74@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549925B74@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549946297@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

Here's the email I sent to the list last Wednesday, prior to our last call:

Keith

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:49 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Update on CCWG-Accountability

All,

In preparation for our upcoming call, here's a brief summary of recent developments in the CCWG-Accountability.

I welcome any additions or clarifications from Kavouss, who has been very engaged in the CCWG.


*         The CCWG is still targeting ICANN #54 in Dublin (October 18-22) for community approval of its recommendation.

*         The second public comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> on the CCWG-Accountability's proposal is currently open.

*         The 40-day public comment period was opened on August 3 and is scheduled to close on Saturday, September 12.

*         The CCWG-Accountability held three webinars on August 4, 7 and 25.

o   The slide presentation his here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54692681/XPL_CCWG%20Proposal_Visual%20Summary_FINAL.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1438710229000&api=v2

*         On August 31, the CCWG gave a briefing to the ICANN Board. This session included a presentation from CCWG to Board with a Q&A session, designed to educate and inform ICANN Board members.

*         On September 2, the CCWG and ICANN Board had a follow-up meeting where the Board provided its preliminary feedback to the CCWG.

*         The ICANN Board's September 2 feedback agreed with the CCWG recommendations on community empowerment and enforceability, but also provided notice that the Board plans to submit public comments raising concerns with the proposed Sole Member model as a means to implement and enforce the community powers.

*         The September 2 CCWG-Board call was fairly contentious, but the CCWG is keeping an open mind and taking a wait-and-see approach, pending receipt of the details of the Board's concerns and suggestions.

*         The CCWG is currently awaiting the written, detailed comments from the ICANN Board, to include any legal analysis.

*         The legal teams from ICANN and the CCWG  met once last week to discuss the Board's concerns. They intend to meet again in the near future. Discussions to date have been non-substantive, pending finalization of the Board's detailed input.

*         The CCWG is continuing its work in planning for assessment of all public comments. It currently intends to consider the ICANN Board's input as part of the public comment period.

*         A face-to-face meeting of the CCWG-Accountability has been proposed for late September.

*         If a face-to-face meeting takes place, it will likely occur in Los Angeles around the time of the ICANN Board's retreat. This will hopefully facilitate any follow-on conversations to the Board's public comments.

*         It remains to be seen whether the Board's concerns are sufficiently fundamental or substantial that a third public comment period might be necessary (were the CCWG to accept and incorporate the Board's input).

I'm happy to discuss further on our upcoming call, but I wanted to provide a summary in advance to help facilitate the discussion.

Regards,
Keith

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150918/d29cb319/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
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 Sep 18 21:15:52 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 21:15:52 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <69819702-F438-40F3-9B8C-A889A34B8CC9@cooperw.in>
	<12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <BY2PR07MB582C4A2669FF3124E3AEA20AC590@BY2PR07MB582.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Jean-Jacques,
I believe your interpretation of this report is faulty, but will explain tomorrow if we have time to discuss it

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:40 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] GAO report
> 
> Alissa & All,
> 
> my impressions after reading the GAO paper:
> 
> - Would this be some sort of writing on the wall? Seen from far-away Europe,
> it looks like a political intervention ABOVE the level of NTIA. About the ICG
> Proposal on avoiding capture, GAO writes: "To address this risk, stakeholders
> proposed changes that would empower the multistakeholder community to
> veto board decisions related to ICANN's plans and budget and to remove
> board members, among other things" might be an indication of what the
> higher political echelons are looking at.
> 
> - GAO seems to have doubts about NTIA's ability to evaluate the Proposal
> against the core goals it set out in 2014: "NTIA has not yet determined how it
> will evaluate the proposal against the goals".
> 
> - GAO "identified frameworks for evaluation that could provide tools to guide
> NTIA's evaluation", but gives no details.
> 
> - The most important point is in the very last sentence, where GAO states that
> "The Department of Commerce concurred" with its recommendation to NTIA.
> As NTIA comes under DoC, this means that NTIA has no option but to follow
> the GAO Recommendation.
> 
> - GAO mistakenly states that "a consensus-based proposal they plan to
> provide to the ICANN board by late fall 2015. The board will then provide the
> proposal to NTIA". As we know, it has been agreed that ICG will address its
> Proposal to the NTIA through ICANN Board, without any alteration by the
> latter.
> 
> Again, seen from outside the USA, the GAO statement carries the risk of
> shifting the goalposts in the middle of the game. I think the ICG is entitled to
> more information about the methods and tools envisaged by GAO, as well as
> the possible outcomes (scenarios?).
> 
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
> À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Septembre 2015 21:44:47
> Objet: [Internal-cg] GAO report
> 
> FYI, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has published its report
> on IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability -- http://gao.gov/products/GAO-
> 15-642
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Sep 18 21:27:51 2015
From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 14:27:51 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <55FC79F2.3000702@ripe.net>
References: <12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<55FC79F2.3000702@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <D6AAC3B9-B2EE-4E68-A6F7-7BF2EFF64D14@mbash.net>

quickly gone through the report, in general the report is positive regarding our process, it did not rise questions/concerns regarding the community processes .
we should continue our work as planned.

as i am not familiar with US political processes/structures, i am not sure if the GAO report recommendations will impact NTIA evaluation time and process, hope it dose not create
a barrier for the transition .. what do you think 

Kind Regards,
Mohamed

> On Sep 18, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Read it.
> 
> Whatever it says it should not deter us from just doing our work as
> diligently and expeditiously as possible. Because if we don't, nothing
> will happen. If we do, there is a possibility for change for the better.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150918/2a00f104/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Fri Sep 18 21:36:32 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 14:36:32 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <D6AAC3B9-B2EE-4E68-A6F7-7BF2EFF64D14@mbash.net>
References: <12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<55FC79F2.3000702@ripe.net>
	<D6AAC3B9-B2EE-4E68-A6F7-7BF2EFF64D14@mbash.net>
Message-ID: <B1302FF8-D7A4-45CF-B7FF-4ED4F413C7FE@frobbit.se>

All,

If people continue to comment on this report, which I understand if people want to do, please be very clear whether you do believe the issue you describe impacts the work of ICG or not.

FWIW: my reading of the report is that it does not impact us, unless we get new directions or questions from NTIA (triggered by this report), at which time we have to adress those messages.

Best,

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150918/a242463f/attachment.sig>

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Fri Sep 18 21:40:59 2015
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 21:40:59 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <B1302FF8-D7A4-45CF-B7FF-4ED4F413C7FE@frobbit.se>
References: <12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<55FC79F2.3000702@ripe.net>
	<D6AAC3B9-B2EE-4E68-A6F7-7BF2EFF64D14@mbash.net>
	<B1302FF8-D7A4-45CF-B7FF-4ED4F413C7FE@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <D221EF04.918AC%jbladel@godaddy.com>

Agree with Patrik.

J.

On 9/18/15, 16:36 , "Internal-cg on behalf of Patrik Fältström"
<internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org on behalf of paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

>All,
>
>If people continue to comment on this report, which I understand if
>people want to do, please be very clear whether you do believe the issue
>you describe impacts the work of ICG or not.
>
>FWIW: my reading of the report is that it does not impact us, unless we
>get new directions or questions from NTIA (triggered by this report), at
>which time we have to adress those messages.
>
>Best,
>
>   Patrik



From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Fri Sep 18 21:42:21 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:42:21 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <B1302FF8-D7A4-45CF-B7FF-4ED4F413C7FE@frobbit.se>
References: <12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<55FC79F2.3000702@ripe.net>
	<D6AAC3B9-B2EE-4E68-A6F7-7BF2EFF64D14@mbash.net>
	<B1302FF8-D7A4-45CF-B7FF-4ED4F413C7FE@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <55FC853D.8000007@ripe.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I believe I clearly spoke to that (;-); just to be sure: "There is no
impact on our work."

On 18.09.15 23:36 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
> All,
> 
> If people continue to comment on this report, which I understand if
> people want to do, please be very clear whether you do believe the
> issue you describe impacts the work of ICG or not.
> 
> FWIW: my reading of the report is that it does not impact us,
> unless we get new directions or questions from NTIA (triggered by
> this report), at which time we have to adress those messages.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Patrik
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing
> list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org 
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=rOfI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Fri Sep 18 22:06:27 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:06:27 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] JHA proposed language on RZM
In-Reply-To: <55FC853D.8000007@ripe.net>
References: <12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<55FC79F2.3000702@ripe.net>
	<D6AAC3B9-B2EE-4E68-A6F7-7BF2EFF64D14@mbash.net>
	<B1302FF8-D7A4-45CF-B7FF-4ED4F413C7FE@frobbit.se>
	<55FC853D.8000007@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <55FC8AE3.4000009@oracle.com>

Alissa requested I post this to the list.

Milton, I may not have captured all the RZM issues raised, I did this 
from memory...

A number of comments have raised the issue of RZM as important to the 
security and stability of the Internet. All who have touched on Root 
Zone issues have asked for greater transparency and opportunity for 
comment in the process.  A subset highlighted a concern related to 
separation of duties, specifically the potential that ICANN may at some 
point take over some RZM functions.  A few comments have raised concern 
of the elimination of a separate root zone authorization function and 
its symbolic importance to trust. Some have requested that the ICG 
undertake a a role or review of that process.  While the ICG accepts 
that there are dependencies between the resolution of the RZM issues and 
the IANA transition, they were specifically excluded from our process as 
they were to be the subject of a separate and parallel process.  We will 
pass the specific nature of comments as appropriate, recognizing that 
some issues have been dealt with wholly or partially in existing 
processes and will take note of the resolution of dependencies.


From paf at frobbit.se  Fri Sep 18 22:20:59 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:20:59 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] JHA proposed language on RZM
In-Reply-To: <55FC8AE3.4000009@oracle.com>
References: <12487663.1760.1442608792627.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<55FC79F2.3000702@ripe.net>
	<D6AAC3B9-B2EE-4E68-A6F7-7BF2EFF64D14@mbash.net>
	<B1302FF8-D7A4-45CF-B7FF-4ED4F413C7FE@frobbit.se>
	<55FC853D.8000007@ripe.net> <55FC8AE3.4000009@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <F771A13C-8E56-49F5-9941-C999ECBB5BA5@frobbit.se>

Thanks for this Joe,

I think/feel a complicating factor is that many parties commenting that "third party review" is needed did not say explicitly whether their view is that it is really important oversight is happening at the point in time of changes being made, or if it is the case that audit in retrospect by third parties (like IETF is doing) is sufficient. Today NTIA is part of day to day operation.

I.e. to me the need for third party oversight is one thing. Being part of day to day operation another.

But I agree with your summary below. Do not suggest changes to it.

   Patrik

On 18 Sep 2015, at 15:06, joseph alhadeff wrote:

> Alissa requested I post this to the list.
>
> Milton, I may not have captured all the RZM issues raised, I did this from memory...
>
> A number of comments have raised the issue of RZM as important to the security and stability of the Internet. All who have touched on Root Zone issues have asked for greater transparency and opportunity for comment in the process.  A subset highlighted a concern related to separation of duties, specifically the potential that ICANN may at some point take over some RZM functions.  A few comments have raised concern of the elimination of a separate root zone authorization function and its symbolic importance to trust. Some have requested that the ICG undertake a a role or review of that process.  While the ICG accepts that there are dependencies between the resolution of the RZM issues and the IANA transition, they were specifically excluded from our process as they were to be the subject of a separate and parallel process.  We will pass the specific nature of comments as appropriate, recognizing that some issues have been dealt with wholly or partially in existing processes and will take note of the resolution of dependencies.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150918/3e1e2611/attachment.sig>

From kdrazek at verisign.com  Fri Sep 18 22:24:45 2015
From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:24:45 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Building Momentum: An Update from the CCWG
	co-Chairs
In-Reply-To: <D221C509.20806%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
References: <D221C509.20806%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549946555@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

FYI, an update message from the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs:

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 1:42 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Building Momentum: An Update from the CCWG co-Chairs

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-accountability-co-chairs


Building Momentum: An Update from the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs

As co-Chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), we wanted to provide a quick status update for the community on where things currently stand in our proposal development.

At 23:59 UTC on 12 September, the public comment period on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal closed. Stakeholders from all around the world studied our proposal and provided feedback for our consideration -- we received a substantial 88 comments<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/> on the proposal. For a draft overview of the major trends seen in the comments received see here<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150915/8167a9d5/2nd-draft-CCWGtrends-v4-0001.pdf> [PDF, 3.6 MB].

Overall our assessment at this stage finds that there is significant support and appreciation for the CCWG's requirements and work to date. There was general agreement that elements proposed in the 2nd Draft Proposal enhance ICANN's accountability, and we believe that our group should take this as a sincere recognition of the quality of work done in preparing the proposal. That said, there are still areas of the proposal that many felt need further details or clarification. This reconsideration deserves careful assessment, and it will be important for the group to discuss these details in full to see where and if we can reach consensus before moving into the next phase of our proposal development.

Over the next week, our team will be finalizing an assessment of the feedback received and we will begin to allocate out suggestions to sub-groups of the CCWG for evaluation. We sense that some suggestions will be relatively straight-forward to incorporate, and for those suggestions which will prove to be more challenging to find consensus on, we will deliberate at the important face-to-face meeting next week in Los Angeles on 25-26 September. We should expect that a large portion of our time in Los Angeles will be reserved to answering the tough questions, and it's important that we come out of the meeting with an idea of how to move forward together.

We've accomplished an extraordinary amount of work since our first meeting in December, but as with so many other things in life, the final stretch may prove to be the most demanding.

Let's keep up the energy. Let's keep up the momentum. Our community, including our ICG colleagues, is counting on us to deliver a proposal. Let's make this happen.

CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs
Thomas Rickert
Mathieu Weill
León Sanchez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150918/f920074e/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Sat Sep 19 01:21:41 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:21:41 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG F2F Meeting 6 Action Items,
	Chat Transcript & Attendance List
Message-ID: <03de01d0f279$8b09bc20$a11d3460$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the action items (below), attendance list (below) and chat
transcript (attached) from Day 1 of the ICG F2F:

 

Action Items

 

1. Cooper to write up summary of comments in general, e.g. statistics,
general support or opposition, etc. by 27 September.

2. Cooper to add the expectation of numbers and protocol parameter community
in regard to the scope of PTI in the part zero of the proposal by 27
September.

3. Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns
received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0 of the ICG report for ICG
review by 27 September.

4. Sub-team (St.Amour, Gerich, Fältström, Alhadeff, Niebel, Ismail) to go
through the set of topics discussed re PTI, and determine disposition of
comments and make recommendations on how the ICG should address the comments
for Day 2 discussion.

5. Mueller to consider how to summarize comments and highlight concerns
received concerning RZM/IFO agreement and report back on Day 2

6. Mueller to review CWG proposal text concerning whether ICANN can be the
RZM and if it is not clear, draft a request by 27 September for
clarification to the CWG.

7. Mueller to suggest ICG action concerning outstanding RZM issues on Day 2.

8. Arkko to draft text by 27 September for Part 0 indicating updated status
of CWG on IANA IPR and noting that items raised in comments are being dealt
with as implementation details.

 

 

Attendance: 

 

ICG Members

Alan Barrett (NRO)

Alissa Cooper (IETF)

Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC)

Demi Getschko (ISOC)

Hartmut Glaser (ASO)

James Bladel (GNSO)

Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC)

Jari Arkko (IETF)

Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC)

Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS)

Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries)

Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)

Keith Davidson (ccNSO)

Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries)

Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC)

Lynn St Amour (IAB)

Manal Ismail (GAC)

Martin Boyle (ccNSO)

Mary Uduma (ccNSO)

Michael Niebel (GAC)

Milton Mueller (GNSO)

Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC)

Patrik Fältström (SSAC)

Paul Wilson (NRO)

Russ Housley (IAB)

Russ Mundy (SSAC)

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) 

Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) 

 

Liaisons

Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison)

Kuo-Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison)

 

Apologies 

Narelle Clark (ISOC)

Thomas Schneider (GAC)

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150918/0059915d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG F2F Meeting 6 Chat Transcript.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 114209 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150918/0059915d/attachment.pdf>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Sat Sep 19 04:52:55 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:52:55 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] proposed summary of comment related to RZM
Message-ID: <BY2PR07MB582CC87B30936AC840A576AAC580@BY2PR07MB582.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>


Here is my assessment of the RZM comments and how ICG should present them in its report. I've incorporated some of Joe's language, but feel that a much more detailed treatment of the issue is required.
--MM

----
Multiple comments from a wide range of stakeholder groups expressed concern about the intersection of the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement and the ICG proposal.
In its March 2014 announcement of the transition, the NTIA said it would coordinate "a related and parallel transition" in the responsibilities related to the Verisign cooperative agreement. The NTIA's decision to coordinate those aspects of the transition means that many RZM issues are outside the remit of the names operational community proposal, and thus outside the remit of the ICG. While the ICG accepts that there are dependencies between the resolution of the RZM issues and the IANA transition, they were specifically excluded from our process.

At the same time, the NTIA itself has recognized that "aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement." Thus, it is difficult to assess the ICG proposal's impact on the security and stability of the DNS root without knowing how the cooperative agreement and the roles of Verisign and ICANN will be modified.

In mid-August 2015 NTIA published a proposal it had solicited from ICANN and Verisign regarding the Root Zone Administrator and Root Zone Maintainer roles. Most of the public commenters addressing the RZM issue felt that the ICANN-Verisign proposal, while unobjectionable in substantive terms, left many questions unanswered and/or raised concerns about the transparency and trustworthiness of the transition process. KIGA noted that "we would like to be assured that a new [RZM] arrangement will be established in consultation with the global multistakeholder community before the actual transition takes place." KIGA's concern was echoed by USCIB (81), CCAOI (69), ICANN GNSO Business Constituency (92), Internet Association (103), Public Knowledge (102), INTA (110), Centre for Communication Governance in India (113), Rishabh Dara (23) and others. Additionally, Nominet UK (47) asked that "the operational communities should now be requested to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal on RZM meets their requirements," and two business groups want IGC to ask ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee to review the ICANN-Verisign proposal.

A subset of commenters highlighted a concern related to separation of duties; specifically, the potential that ICANN may at some point take over some RZM functions.
The CWG proposal pertaining to root zone management cites as a "Principle" the following:

2) Control of Root Zone Management: Currently, updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties: the IFO, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. ...Post transition there will only be the IFO and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG-Stewardship is not recommending any change in the functions performed by these two roles at this time. The CWG-Stewardship is recommending that should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation."

The ICG observes that If the NTIA process does not permit wide community consultation on any changes in the RZM and IFO roles, there is a risk that support for the ICG proposal would deteriorate. The ICG calls attention to the comments of the Internet NZ (123) in this regard:

InternetNZ invites the ICG to consider whether the final transition proposal should do more to specify and clarify that this separation, which has been in place since before ICANN was formed, should continue for the foreseeable future - perhaps being encapsulated as a Fundamental Bylaw in ICANN's rules.

There is evidence that other ccTLD operators share this opinion and would reassess their support for the ICG proposal if it did not embody this principle.

---

Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/5a962f05/attachment.html>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Sat Sep 19 06:23:51 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 08:23:51 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <55FC853D.8000007@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <11580233.13.1442643828137.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

All,

thanks for reacting to my first impressions. Quick responses to your comments/suggestions:

- Although one colleague finds my interpretation "faulty" (Professor Milton), this is a real topic, worth our attention (Paul suggested it be discussed on Day 2 of our meeting).

- The announcement by GAO should not deter us from our work (Daniel, James, Patrik, Mohamed). Naturally, I agree wholeheartedly. But that does not imply that we should shut our eyes and ears: we need to know more. And how come we were not informed by NTIA but, like the rest of the world, learned it through the media?

Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Septembre 2015 23:42:21
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] GAO report

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I believe I clearly spoke to that (;-); just to be sure: "There is no
impact on our work."

On 18.09.15 23:36 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
> All,
> 
> If people continue to comment on this report, which I understand if
> people want to do, please be very clear whether you do believe the
> issue you describe impacts the work of ICG or not.
> 
> FWIW: my reading of the report is that it does not impact us,
> unless we get new directions or questions from NTIA (triggered by
> this report), at which time we have to adress those messages.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Patrik
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing
> list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org 
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=rOfI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
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 Sep 19 13:41:51 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 13:41:51 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Question for CWG-names on RZM
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB5894F506DF934250EACBAFBAC580@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Russ Mundy and I agreed that it would be appropriate to send a question to the CWG (names) about the RZM issue. I sent this text out to him last night, but Russ has not indicated whether he likes this language or not. As we enter into the second day, I think it would be more efficient for me to send this to the entire group now rather than waiting, so that it's "out there" for you all to consider:

--MM

QUESTION FROM THE ICG FOR THE NAMES OC:

The statement below notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate "roles" with distinct functions. Currently, these roles are held and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to "make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification," did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or its IFO should not become RZM the without being subject to a "wide community consultation?"


---
2) Control of Root Zone Management: Currently, updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties: the IFO, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. ... Post transition there will only be the IFO and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG-Stewardship is not recommending any change in the functions performed by these two roles at this time. The CWG-Stewardship is recommending that should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation."

From: Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 9:06 PM
To: 'Russ Mundy' <mundy at tislabs.com>
Cc: 'Keith Davidson' <keith at internetnz.net.nz>
Subject: Question for CWG-names on RZM

Russ, Keith
Here is a question I have formulated for transmission to the CWG.

The CWG proposal pertaining to root zone management cites as a "Principle" the following (paragraph 1158):

2) Control of Root Zone Management: Currently, updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties: the IFO, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. The IFO receives change requests from various sources, validates them, and sends them to the Root Zone Maintainer who, once they are authorized by the NTIA, updates the Root Zone File, DNSSEC signs it and distributes it to the Root operators. Post transition there will only be the IFO and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG-Stewardship is not recommending any change in the functions performed by these two roles at this time. The CWG-Stewardship is recommending that should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation."

QUESTION FOR THE NAMES OC:

The statement above notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate "roles" with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to "make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification," did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or its IFO should not become RZM the without being subject to a "wide community consultation?"

Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/ca446d4d/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Sat Sep 19 13:43:41 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 06:43:41 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <11580233.13.1442643828137.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <11580233.13.1442643828137.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <251472EE-78C1-481C-B91B-1741E734BF8F@frobbit.se>

On 18 Sep 2015, at 23:23, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:

> And how come we were not informed by NTIA but, like the rest of the world, learned it through the media?

We where informed by GAO, as GAO released the report.

We where informed at the same time as media, but media is quick you know...

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/9f878df1/attachment.sig>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Sat Sep 19 14:31:19 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 14:31:19 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <251472EE-78C1-481C-B91B-1741E734BF8F@frobbit.se>
References: <11580233.13.1442643828137.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<251472EE-78C1-481C-B91B-1741E734BF8F@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB58912C7FDF894026673E2CEAC580@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

I have not had time to read the full 65 page report, but after reading the Exec Summary and scanning the outline, this report should be digested with a huge sigh relief by NTIA and us. 

The essence of the report is summarized in these lines: 

"GAO identified frameworks for evaluation that could provide tools to guide NTIA's evaluation. 
These types of frameworks could help NTIA evaluate whether the transition proposal meets its core goals, and could also be helpful in considering accountability mechanisms that are included in the proposal."

In other words, GAO is accepting the NTIA criteria, and tacitly accepting the objective of an IANA transition, and saying, OK, if you are going to do that here is a framework you can use to assess the proposal developed by the ICG and the so-called multistakeholder community to determine whether it will meet your criteria and whether it will work. 

It also means that when NTIA interacts with Congress there will be a more uniform basis for assessing the proposal. (But I admit I have not looked carefully at their framework yet). 

Almost one third of the report is just descriptive, educational material about the IANA functions, ICANN, the way NTIA relates to Verisign, etc. Another third is a description of the transition working groups. The last third deals with the evaluation and risk assessment methods. 

On the whole this seems to be a constructive and informative report that channels USG assessment of the proposal into rational avenues rather than inflaming political tensions. 

--MM


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Patrik Fältström
> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 9:44 AM
> To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] GAO report
> 
> On 18 Sep 2015, at 23:23, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
> 
> > And how come we were not informed by NTIA but, like the rest of the world,
> learned it through the media?
> 
> We where informed by GAO, as GAO released the report.
> 
> We where informed at the same time as media, but media is quick you know...
> 
>    Patrik


From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Sat Sep 19 15:19:24 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 08:19:24 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] GAO report
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB58912C7FDF894026673E2CEAC580@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <11580233.13.1442643828137.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<251472EE-78C1-481C-B91B-1741E734BF8F@frobbit.se>
	<DM2PR07MB58912C7FDF894026673E2CEAC580@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <E62750B1-21A0-4519-AB6B-56C336EA42D9@piuha.net>


> On the whole this seems to be a constructive and informative report that channels USG assessment of the proposal into rational avenues rather than inflaming political tensions.

+1

And what you would expect from an organisation such as the GAO.

Jari


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/9797d35f/attachment.sig>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Sat Sep 19 15:44:27 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 08:44:27 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for Day 2
Message-ID: <045901d0f2f2$11eee260$35cca720$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the revised Agenda for today's meeting.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/c30badd6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG Meeting 6 agenda-day2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 231983 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/c30badd6/attachment.pdf>

From paf at frobbit.se  Sat Sep 19 16:28:30 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:28:30 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] PTI related issues subgroup results
Message-ID: <2A516522-2549-4DAB-8F66-2BB93E8D1601@frobbit.se>

Here is the result that I will present today.

   Patrik

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PTI related issues.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 123146 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/4d8521ee/attachment.pptx>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Sat Sep 19 16:48:30 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:48:30 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] revised question for CWG on RZM
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589D8B05AA523860269DBB0AC580@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>


QUESTION FOR THE NAMES OC:

The ICG has a question for the CWG based on comments received in the ICG's public comment period. Paragraph 1158 in the CWG proposal notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate "roles" with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to "make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification," did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or its IFO should not become RZM without being subject to a "wide community consultation?" The ICG would also like to know what is meant by a "wide community consultation?" Is it the same as a public comment? Does it also imply wide community consensus?
A reply prior to ICANN 54 would be appreciated.


Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/2def7e9a/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Sat Sep 19 16:53:04 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:53:04 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] NTIA Criteria
Message-ID: <55FD92F0.6010105@oracle.com>

Colleagues:

I took the initiative (assuming "voluntold") to try to craft a draft of 
the summary of the NTIA Criteria Comments and ICG actions.  This summary 
has obviously not been informed by the discussion among members and will 
need to be edited to reflect the collective views of the room.  The 
other question is to what extent we wish to specifically call out or 
quote comments, I have not made specific references to comment number or 
language, but we should agree on look, feel and style across summaries.  
At some point I may use the summary during the conversation as a foil 
for comments in the review.

My understanding is that we would draft a report at a general level 
related to trending/important issues and the related transition comments 
that would include our actions (review for clarity, edit, refer) or 
reasons why there should not be action (out of remit, already 
addressed...).  This section summary would be merged into a draft report 
that would form the basis for our edits and referrals as documenting our 
interim responses and actions.

Best-

Joe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NTIA Criteria.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 30208 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/4f22f1dd/attachment.doc>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Sat Sep 19 17:02:20 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:02:20 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v3
Message-ID: <049a01d0f2fc$f55e1b10$e01a5130$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as
requested by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:

 

"E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be part
of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/e97d877c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-F2F-6-v3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 335338 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/e97d877c/attachment.pdf>

From mundy at tislabs.com  Sat Sep 19 17:55:18 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:55:18 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] revised question for CWG on RZM
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589D8B05AA523860269DBB0AC580@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR07MB589D8B05AA523860269DBB0AC580@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <AE055865-0C4B-4D65-A28B-39D998F177B5@tislabs.com>

Milton,

Thanks for this revised version.  I do have one very minor suggestion and that is to add a few words to the second sentence so it is clear which document we’re referring to:

Current wording: “Paragraph 1158 in the CWG proposal notes..."

Suggested wording: “Paragraph 1158 in the CWG portion of the transition proposal (Part 1) notes..."

Russ

On Sep 19, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

>  
> QUESTION FOR THE NAMES OC:
>  
> The ICG has a question for the CWG based on comments received in the ICG's public comment period. Paragraph 1158 in the CWG proposal notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate “roles” with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to “make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification,” did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or its IFO should not become RZM without being subject to a “wide community consultation?” The ICG would also like to know what is meant by a “wide community consultation?” Is it the same as a public comment? Does it also imply wide community consensus?
> A reply prior to ICANN 54 would be appreciated.
>  
>  
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/b3a95dda/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Sat Sep 19 18:06:49 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:06:49 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] revised question for CWG on RZM
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589D8B05AA523860269DBB0AC580@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR07MB589D8B05AA523860269DBB0AC580@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <9F5B2D4E-E9F0-452A-BD65-94B82A6C9287@cooperw.in>

I agree with Russ’s edit and have a few more suggestions.

> On Sep 19, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
>  
> QUESTION FOR THE NAMES OC:
>  
> The ICG has a question for the CWG based on comments received in the ICG's public comment period. Paragraph 1158 in the CWG proposal notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate “roles” with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to “make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification,” did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or its IFO should not become RZM without being subject to a “wide community consultation?”

Suggest replacing the last clause above with 'did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or the IFO should not become the RZM without the proposal to make that change first being subject to a “wide community consultation?”'

> The ICG would also like to know what is meant by a “wide community consultation?” Is it the same as a public comment?

Suggest replacing “public comment” with “public comment period"

> Does it also imply wide community consensus?

Suggest replacing the above with “Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change?"

> A reply prior to ICANN 54 would be appreciated.

Let’s discuss the timing after we go over our future call and meeting schedule.

Alissa

>  
>  
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/2f2922ce/attachment.html>

From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Sat Sep 19 18:37:32 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:37:32 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] proposed text change with regards to IPR
Message-ID: <CC915295-BE60-4110-9409-C886D9F38FEC@piuha.net>

Yesterday I got this task:

8. Arkko to draft text by 27 September for Part 0 indicating updated
status of CWG on IANA IPR and noting that items raised in
comments are being dealt with as implementation details.

I have now uploaded a new file under “Public Comment”, file
IANA-transition-proposal-IPR-changes.doc that contains an
edited version of the proposal that went for public comment.
It contains two changes, one on the executive summary and
the other one on part 0. Take a look at the file, or these two
screen captures for the changes:





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/ff41192b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ipr-change-1st.jpeg
Type: image/jpg
Size: 221568 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/ff41192b/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ipr-change-2nd.jpeg
Type: image/jpg
Size: 364129 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/ff41192b/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/ff41192b/attachment.sig>

From housley at vigilsec.com  Sat Sep 19 18:42:28 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 14:42:28 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] proposed text change with regards to IPR
In-Reply-To: <CC915295-BE60-4110-9409-C886D9F38FEC@piuha.net>
References: <CC915295-BE60-4110-9409-C886D9F38FEC@piuha.net>
Message-ID: <6863C373-347F-4021-885D-48983FB14FB4@vigilsec.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Minor suggestion...
s/are therefore clear/are clear/


On Sep 19, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Yesterday I got this task:
> 
> 8. Arkko to draft text by 27 September for Part 0 indicating updated
> status of CWG on IANA IPR and noting that items raised in 
> comments are being dealt with as implementation details.
> 
> I have now uploaded a new file under “Public Comment”, file
> IANA-transition-proposal-IPR-changes.doc that contains an
> edited version of the proposal that went for public comment.
> It contains two changes, one on the executive summary and
> the other one on part 0. Take a look at the file, or these two
> screen captures for the changes:
> 
> <ipr-change-1st.jpeg>
> 
> 
> 
> <ipr-change-2nd.jpeg>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAlX9rJUACgkQiuTu0PWcEct/SwCgrv4EY3m/9eTGJpcXxSnFIiV4
koUAn2pNsb85+flfEuhjazdWAPF105b1
=YjlP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Sat Sep 19 22:12:33 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 22:12:33 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final edits to RZM Question for CWG
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB58925EDD3EC34B48E746096AC580@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

QUESTION FOR THE CWG-STEWARDSHIP:

The ICG has a question for the CWG based on comments received in the ICG's public comment period. Paragraph 1158 in the CWG portion of the transition proposal (Part 1) notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate "roles" with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to "make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification," 'did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or the IFO should not become the RZM without the proposal to make that change first being subject to a "wide community consultation?"' The ICG would also like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation? Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change?
[A reply is expected by ICANN 54]


Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/cbab2add/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Sat Sep 19 22:49:09 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:49:09 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
Message-ID: <05d601d0f32d$679aa3d0$36cfeb70$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that contains
edits to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83,
InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)

 

Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD 

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

 

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: ICG Slide deck v3

 

Dear All,

 

Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as
requested by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:

 

"E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be part
of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/1b45f6ec/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-F2F-6-v4.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 341095 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/1b45f6ec/attachment.pdf>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Sat Sep 19 22:50:45 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 22:50:45 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Further revisions of the RZM question
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB58903C97B84A20EC2A182ABAC580@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>


QUESTION FOR THE NAMES OC:

Based on comments received in the ICG's public comment period, the ICG seeks clarification from the CWG on the following matter. Paragraph 1158 in the CWG portion of the transition proposal (Part 1) notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate "roles" with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to "make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification," 'did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or the IFO should not become the RZM without the proposal to make that change first being subject to a "wide community consultation?"' The ICG would also like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation? Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate.


Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/43a0c56b/attachment.html>

From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Sun Sep 20 00:05:54 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 17:05:54 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] proposed text change with regards to IPR
In-Reply-To: <CC915295-BE60-4110-9409-C886D9F38FEC@piuha.net>
References: <CC915295-BE60-4110-9409-C886D9F38FEC@piuha.net>
Message-ID: <FEC0E447-EBF5-4EA3-A654-EAF48EF3822C@piuha.net>

Thanks for all the feedback.

I have an updated version of the proposal text re: IPR now in DropBox,
file IANA-transition-proposal-IPR-changes-v2.doc and also in text
form below.

——

The ICG identified earlier a potential compatibility issue regarding the IANA trademarks and the iana.org domain name. The numbers community expects that both are associated with the IANA function and not with a particular IANA Function Operator. The entity that is associated with the trademarks and domains holds them on behalf of the three operational communities and the current operators.

Although the protocol parameters proposal did not speak to this issue, in response to an ICG inquiry the protocol parameters community indicated that it had no objection and was willing to help contribute to the arrangement.

The names proposal contains text that refers to the trademark in Annex S. In response to an ICG inquiry about the text, the CWG indicated that the text is clearly defined as placeholder text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG. In effect, the names proposal did not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademarks (and it is completely silent as regards the domain name). Since then, the CWG has confirmed that its position is consistent with that of the other two communities in that it has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator. These community positions are also consistent with the ICANN board statement on the same topic.

As a result, the ICG considers the three proposals to be compatible. While the requirements in the transition plan are therefore clear, work remains to actually implement the requirements. Detailed implementation requirements for the entity holding the IPR will be agreed and specified, an appropriate entity will then be created or selected such that it can meet the detailed requirements. The ICG notes that the operational communities are coordinating these details, and the ICG expects this coordination to continue during the implementation phase to ensure that the requirements are met. Some of the questions that the ICG received during the public comment period of the proposal relate to the implementation details. These details become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation.

——

Comments again appreciated.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/6594e10b/attachment.sig>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Sun Sep 20 00:43:22 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:43:22 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Informal dinner - LA
In-Reply-To: <05d601d0f32d$679aa3d0$36cfeb70$@icgsec.asia>
References: <05d601d0f32d$679aa3d0$36cfeb70$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <69239B4E-0FB9-48E8-88E4-6DB6624B4063@LStAmour.org>

Hi everyone,

the concierge and I tried a few restaurants suggested by some ICG members - all booked.   The concierge recommended the Industriel restaurant (Urban Farm Cuisine)  http://industrielfarm.com.     We will meet in the lobby at 6:30 near the registration desk and have reservations at 6:45.  Address: 609 South Grand Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90017.  It is about 4 blocks from here (1 block behind the library).

Lynn

From jen at icgsec.asia  Sun Sep 20 01:58:43 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 18:58:43 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG F2F Meeting 6 day 2 Chat Transcript & Attendance
	List
Message-ID: <065f01d0f347$e1cf4830$a56dd890$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

The master action list (both days) will be circulated as soon as the Chairs
and Secretariat re-word a few items.  Please find the attendance list
(below) and chat transcript (attached) from Day 2 of the ICG F2F:

 

Attendance: 

 

ICG Members

Alan Barrett (NRO)

Alissa Cooper (IETF)

Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC)

Demi Getschko (ISOC)

Hartmut Glaser (ASO)

James Bladel (GNSO)

Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC)

Jari Arkko (IETF)

Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC)

Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS)

Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries)

Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)

Keith Davidson (ccNSO)

Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries)

Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC)

Lynn St Amour (IAB)

Manal Ismail (GAC)

Martin Boyle (ccNSO)

Mary Uduma (ccNSO)

Michael Niebel (GAC)

Milton Mueller (GNSO)

Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC)

Narelle Clark (ISOC)

Patrik Fältström (SSAC)

Paul Wilson (NRO)

Russ Housley (IAB)

Russ Mundy (SSAC)

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) 

Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) 

 

Liaisons

Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison)

Kuo-Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison)

 

Apologies 

Thomas Schneider (GAC)

 

Enjoy the wonderful L.A. evening!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/198fb666/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG F2F Meeting Chat Transcript Day 2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 295966 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/198fb666/attachment.pdf>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Sun Sep 20 02:58:06 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:58:06 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG F2F meeting 6: Actions Items and Decisions Taken
	- Day 1 and Day 2
Message-ID: <067e01d0f350$2dbe8be0$893ba3a0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Attached (and linked below) please find the master list of action items and
decisions taken for both Day 1 and Day 2 of the ICG F2F meeting.

 

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1LFUyXS 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/988686e8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Action Items and Decisions Taken from Day 1 and 2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16262 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/988686e8/attachment.docx>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Mon Sep 21 10:12:29 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:12:29 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] proposed text change with regards to IPR
In-Reply-To: <FEC0E447-EBF5-4EA3-A654-EAF48EF3822C@piuha.net>
References: <CC915295-BE60-4110-9409-C886D9F38FEC@piuha.net>
	<FEC0E447-EBF5-4EA3-A654-EAF48EF3822C@piuha.net>
Message-ID: <11f11f15cc004d70a15502a38cb59840@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Jari ..
Just a minor edit to the very last sentence to read: 
" These details will become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation."
Instead of 
" These details become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation."

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 2:06 AM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] proposed text change with regards to IPR

Thanks for all the feedback.

I have an updated version of the proposal text re: IPR now in DropBox, file IANA-transition-proposal-IPR-changes-v2.doc and also in text form below.

--

The ICG identified earlier a potential compatibility issue regarding the IANA trademarks and the iana.org domain name. The numbers community expects that both are associated with the IANA function and not with a particular IANA Function Operator. The entity that is associated with the trademarks and domains holds them on behalf of the three operational communities and the current operators.

Although the protocol parameters proposal did not speak to this issue, in response to an ICG inquiry the protocol parameters community indicated that it had no objection and was willing to help contribute to the arrangement.

The names proposal contains text that refers to the trademark in Annex S. In response to an ICG inquiry about the text, the CWG indicated that the text is clearly defined as placeholder text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG. In effect, the names proposal did not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademarks (and it is completely silent as regards the domain name). Since then, the CWG has confirmed that its position is consistent with that of the other two communities in that it has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator. These community positions are also consistent with the ICANN board statement on the same topic.

As a result, the ICG considers the three proposals to be compatible. While the requirements in the transition plan are therefore clear, work remains to actually implement the requirements. Detailed implementation requirements for the entity holding the IPR will be agreed and specified, an appropriate entity will then be created or selected such that it can meet the detailed requirements. The ICG notes that the operational communities are coordinating these details, and the ICG expects this coordination to continue during the implementation phase to ensure that the requirements are met. Some of the questions that the ICG received during the public comment period of the proposal relate to the implementation details. These details become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation.

--

Comments again appreciated.

Jari



From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Mon Sep 21 13:54:16 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:54:16 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] RZM issue
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB5890081DC5E681D8A4148CAAC460@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Dear all:
I am working on the Section 0 language and comment summary on Root Zone Management (RZM) as requested.

After reviewing the key transition documents and our own record of discussion and comment, I think we have made a bit of a mistake in our conceptualization of our relationship to the NTIA process. it appears that we have considered 'RZM' as a whole to be under NTIA's remit and not ours. This is incorrect.

The only thing that NTIA has asserted exclusive 'jurisdiction' over is the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement, which it said would be the subject of a "related and parallel transition." NTIA control of that process is quite appropriate, because the CA is a contract between VRSN and NTIA; only those two parties can change it. But there is nothing in the March 2014 announcement or anything else that says that NTIA is exclusively responsible for all aspects of RZM. Indeed, the CWG has already dealt with the authorization function, which is a critical part of RZM, and as part of its proposal CWG made many other suggestions and proposals related to the role of the IANA functions operator in RZM. While revision of the cooperative agreement is NTIA's job exclusively, those aspects of RZM that touch directly on the IANA functions operator (IFO) are either joint responsibilities or part of the ICG's remit.

>From this I conclude that ICG should tone down its disclaimers about how this is all outside of its remit, and that we would be fully justified in insisting that any revisions in RZM that NTIA, ICANN and Verisign agree to as part of the revision of Verisign's Cooperative agreement need to be consistent and compatible with the CWG's proposals for the organization, functions and processes of the IFO.
So I would propose that in addition to the clarification question we have already agreed to send, we add another request, asking the CWG to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal on RZM meets their requirements. This was suggested by Nominet UK and indirectly suggested by many others.

Comments?

Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150921/9b290264/attachment.html>

From fmniebel at gmail.com  Mon Sep 21 14:27:25 2015
From: fmniebel at gmail.com (FMNiebel)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:27:25 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] RZM issue
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB5890081DC5E681D8A4148CAAC460@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR07MB5890081DC5E681D8A4148CAAC460@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <858B09E1-776E-4ACD-AD4A-82E55DCB5333@gmail.com>

Sounds coherent and convincing to me
Michael

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 21.09.2015 um 15:54 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>:
> 
> Dear all:
> I am working on the Section 0 language and comment summary on Root Zone Management (RZM) as requested.
>  
> After reviewing the key transition documents and our own record of discussion and comment, I think we have made a bit of a mistake in our conceptualization of our relationship to the NTIA process. it appears that we have considered ‘RZM’ as a whole to be under NTIA’s remit and not ours. This is incorrect.
>  
> The only thing that NTIA has asserted exclusive ‘jurisdiction’ over is the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement, which it said would be the subject of a “related and parallel transition.” NTIA control of that process is quite appropriate, because the CA is a contract between VRSN and NTIA; only those two parties can change it. But there is nothing in the March 2014 announcement or anything else that says that NTIA is exclusively responsible for all aspects of RZM. Indeed, the CWG has already dealt with the authorization function, which is a critical part of RZM, and as part of its proposal CWG made many other suggestions and proposals related to the role of the IANA functions operator in RZM. While revision of the cooperative agreement is NTIA’s job exclusively, those aspects of RZM that touch directly on the IANA functions operator (IFO) are either joint responsibilities or part of the ICG’s remit.
>  
> From this I conclude that ICG should tone down its disclaimers about how this is all outside of its remit, and that we would be fully justified in insisting that any revisions in RZM that NTIA, ICANN and Verisign agree to as part of the revision of Verisign’s Cooperative agreement need to be consistent and compatible with the CWG’s proposals for the organization, functions and processes of the IFO.
> So I would propose that in addition to the clarification question we have already agreed to send, we add another request, asking the CWG to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal on RZM meets their requirements. This was suggested by Nominet UK and indirectly suggested by many others.
>  
> Comments?
>  
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150921/3b79d449/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Mon Sep 21 15:33:36 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 08:33:36 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?RZM_issue?=
Message-ID: <20150921152628.2235F1C1588@smtp.notifymdm.com>

If you can appropriately capture that sentiment and link to underlying mandate docs I'm on board 

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

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

From: FMNiebel [fmniebel at gmail.com]
Received: Monday, 21 Sep 2015, 7:27AM
To: Mueller, Milton L [milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu]
CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RZM issue

Sounds coherent and convincing to me
Michael

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 21.09.2015 um 15:54 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>:
> 
> Dear all:
> I am working on the Section 0 language and comment summary on Root Zone Management (RZM) as requested.
>  
> After reviewing the key transition documents and our own record of discussion and comment, I think we have made a bit of a mistake in our conceptualization of our relationship to the NTIA process. it appears that we have considered ‘RZM’ as a whole to be under NTIA’s remit and not ours. This is incorrect.
>  
> The only thing that NTIA has asserted exclusive ‘jurisdiction’ over is the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement, which it said would be the subject of a “related and parallel transition.” NTIA control of that process is quite appropriate, because the CA is a contract between VRSN and NTIA; only those two parties can change it. But there is nothing in the March 2014 announcement or anything else that says that NTIA is exclusively responsible for all aspects of RZM. Indeed, the CWG has already dealt with the authorization function, which is a critical part of RZM, and as part of its proposal CWG made many other suggestions and proposals related to the role of the IANA functions operator in RZM. While revision of the cooperative agreement is NTIA’s job exclusively, those aspects of RZM that touch directly on the IANA functions operator (IFO) are either joint responsibilities or part of the ICG’s remit.
>  
> From this I conclude that ICG should tone down its disclaimers about how this is all outside of its remit, and that we would be fully justified in insisting that any revisions in RZM that NTIA, ICANN and Verisign agree to as part of the revision of Verisign’s Cooperative agreement need to be consistent and compatible with the CWG’s proposals for the organization, functions and processes of the IFO.
> So I would propose that in addition to the clarification question we have already agreed to send, we add another request, asking the CWG to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal on RZM meets their requirements. This was suggested by Nominet UK and indirectly suggested by many others.
>  
> Comments?
>  
> 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

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Mon Sep 21 16:58:09 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:58:09 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B395E2@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Dear all,

Thanks all for a constructive and useful dialogue on Friday & Saturday.

In response to the action on me (item 3) on ccTLD comments, I suggest the following wording for the note to the CWG:

We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., "Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)" about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG).

The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with "The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015."

The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005).  This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether the proposal could be adapted accordingly.

We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283).  This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT.  While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member.  In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement.  We would welcome the CWG's thoughts on this suggestion.

Keith Davidson and Wolf-Ulrich have both seen the proposed wording (although I have made some hopefully uncontroversial mods since then, so I'd welcome their confirmation that they are happy with the text).

Hope this helps


Martin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150921/240ec124/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Mon Sep 21 17:10:48 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:10:48 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B395E2@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B395E2@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <670C39C9E85E4AC8A3502CE39F08D0F4@WUKPC>

Thanks Martin, I fully agree.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Martin Boyle 
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 6:58 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)

Dear all,

 

Thanks all for a constructive and useful dialogue on Friday & Saturday.

 

In response to the action on me (item 3) on ccTLD comments, I suggest the following wording for the note to the CWG:

 

We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG).

 

The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.”

 

The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005).  This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether the proposal could be adapted accordingly.

 

We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283).  This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT.  While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member.  In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement.  We would welcome the CWG’s thoughts on this suggestion.

 

Keith Davidson and Wolf-Ulrich have both seen the proposed wording (although I have made some hopefully uncontroversial mods since then, so I’d welcome their confirmation that they are happy with the text).

 

Hope this helps

 

 

Martin

 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150921/045d8447/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Mon Sep 21 18:28:28 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:28:28 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the CWG on RZM
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB5895A70A1E8AA6DDF53A03AAC460@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Here are my proposed questions. The second one reflects all the edits we discussed at the face to face meeting, though there will probably still be some quibbles with it. The first is a new one.
--MM

2 RZM QUESTIONS FOR THE NAMES OC:

1.	Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements

2.	Based on comments received in the ICG's public comment period, the ICG seeks clarification from the CWG on the following matter. Paragraph 1158 in the CWG portion of the transition proposal (Part 1) notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate "roles" with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to "make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification," did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or the IFO should not become the RZM without the proposal to make that change first being subject to a "wide community consultation?"' The ICG would also like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation. Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate. 




From jen at icgsec.asia  Mon Sep 21 19:19:14 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:19:14 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Translation of submission 139
Message-ID: <018e01d0f4a2$67eb2f50$37c18df0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the translated version of submission 139 from the Colombian
Government attached and linked below:

 

Link: https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission139-en.pdf 

 

We are currently waiting for two outstanding translations for submission 50
and submission 159.  These will be published on the web archive and
circulated to the mailing list once we receive them from the vendor.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150921/05082d22/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submission139-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 133212 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150921/05082d22/attachment.pdf>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Mon Sep 21 21:02:15 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:02:15 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum
Message-ID: <01b101d0f4b0$cc75d480$65617d80$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the comment received on the ICG forum, details below:

 

Sunday 20 Sept: Richard Hill - "Process Concerns" -
http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-September/000005.ht
ml 

 

The comment requests that the ICG forward the comment to
CCWG-Accountability.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150921/1188bc01/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Mon Sep 21 21:52:34 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:52:34 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Translations for submission 50 and submission 159
Message-ID: <01fe01d0f4b7$d3d70120$7b850360$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find attached and linked below, the translations for submission 50
and submission 159.  All submissions are now available in English.

 

Submission 50:
https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission50-en.pdf

Submission 159:
https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission159-en.pdf

 

You may view all submissions and translated versions on the archive:
https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-
public-archive-of-submitted-comments/

 

In addition, the zip file containing all submissions, supplements, and
translated versions have been updated, the link is available on the archive
(above).  

Here is a short link for your download convenience:
http://icgsec.asia/1JlGqkx   [.zip, 88 MB]

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150921/a02d70d6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submission50-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 133534 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150921/a02d70d6/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submission159-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 137192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150921/a02d70d6/attachment-0001.pdf>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Sep 21 23:13:08 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:13:08 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the CWG on RZM
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB5895A70A1E8AA6DDF53A03AAC460@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR07MB5895A70A1E8AA6DDF53A03AAC460@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <3B4105E2-0F48-4151-B2B1-887CC20ED955@cooperw.in>


> On Sep 21, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> Here are my proposed questions. The second one reflects all the edits we discussed at the face to face meeting, though there will probably still be some quibbles with it. The first is a new one.
> --MM
> 
> 2 RZM QUESTIONS FOR THE NAMES OC:
> 
> 1.	Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root

sub “confirm whether” for “confirm that"

> Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements

Please insert a citation to the paragraph or section from the combined transition proposal that states the CWG’s requirements.

> 
> 2.	Based on comments received in the ICG's public comment period, the ICG seeks clarification from the CWG on the following matter.

Since we will be sending multiple questions, I think we can move the above sentence up above all of the questions and sub “matters” for “matter.”

Thanks,
Alissa

> Paragraph 1158 in the CWG portion of the transition proposal (Part 1) notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate "roles" with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to "make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification," did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or the IFO should not become the RZM without the proposal to make that change first being subject to a "wide community consultation?"' The ICG would also like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation. Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate. 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Sep 21 23:18:56 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:18:56 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B395E2@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B395E2@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <8961B4A4-C996-4EAC-A16A-DAD80C196D25@cooperw.in>

Martin,

Thank you. Comments below.

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
>  
> Thanks all for a constructive and useful dialogue on Friday & Saturday.
>  
> In response to the action on me (item 3) on ccTLD comments, I suggest the following wording for the note to the CWG:
>  
> We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG).
>  
> The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.”
>  
> The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005).  This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether the proposal could be adapted accordingly.

I would suggest adding:

“If the CWG agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for paragraph 1036 and any associated footnotes so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined transition proposal."

>  
> We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283).  This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT.  While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member.  In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement.  We would welcome the CWG’s thoughts on this suggestion.

I would suggest deleting the last sentence above and replacing it with:

“If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment.”

Thanks,
Alissa

>  
> Keith Davidson and Wolf-Ulrich have both seen the proposed wording (although I have made some hopefully uncontroversial mods since then, so I’d welcome their confirmation that they are happy with the text).
>  
> Hope this helps
>  
>  
> Martin
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150921/43fd9ece/attachment.html>

From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Tue Sep 22 13:10:26 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:10:26 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum
In-Reply-To: <01b101d0f4b0$cc75d480$65617d80$@icgsec.asia>
References: <01b101d0f4b0$cc75d480$65617d80$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <56015342.6020008@ripe.net>

I support forwarding this to CCWG quickly and without comment.

Daniel

On 21.09.15 23:02 , Jennifer Chung wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
>  
> 
> Please find the comment received on the ICG forum, details below:
> 
>  
> 
> Sunday 20 Sept: Richard Hill – “Process Concerns” -
> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-September/000005.html
> 
> 
>  
> 
> The comment requests that the ICG forward the comment to
> CCWG-Accountability.
> 
>  
> 
> 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 joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Tue Sep 22 13:32:56 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:32:56 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum
In-Reply-To: <56015342.6020008@ripe.net>
References: <01b101d0f4b0$cc75d480$65617d80$@icgsec.asia>
	<56015342.6020008@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <56015888.20408@oracle.com>

Agreed.

On 9/22/2015 9:10 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> I support forwarding this to CCWG quickly and without comment.
>
> Daniel
>
> On 21.09.15 23:02 , Jennifer Chung wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>>   
>>
>> Please find the comment received on the ICG forum, details below:
>>
>>   
>>
>> Sunday 20 Sept: Richard Hill – “Process Concerns” -
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-September/000005.html
>>
>>
>>   
>>
>> The comment requests that the ICG forward the comment to
>> CCWG-Accountability.
>>
>>   
>>
>> 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 manal at tra.gov.eg  Tue Sep 22 13:47:17 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 13:47:17 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum
In-Reply-To: <56015888.20408@oracle.com>
References: <01b101d0f4b0$cc75d480$65617d80$@icgsec.asia>
	<56015342.6020008@ripe.net> <56015888.20408@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <ae0d264a1185481eaeb956d451e905e6@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Agree too ..
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:33 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum

Agreed.

On 9/22/2015 9:10 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> I support forwarding this to CCWG quickly and without comment.
>
> Daniel
>
> On 21.09.15 23:02 , Jennifer Chung wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>>   
>>
>> Please find the comment received on the ICG forum, details below:
>>
>>   
>>
>> Sunday 20 Sept: Richard Hill - "Process Concerns" - 
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-September/00
>> 0005.html
>>
>>
>>   
>>
>> The comment requests that the ICG forward the comment to 
>> CCWG-Accountability.
>>
>>   
>>
>> 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 manal at tra.gov.eg  Tue Sep 22 13:50:13 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 13:50:13 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
In-Reply-To: <05d601d0f32d$679aa3d0$36cfeb70$@icgsec.asia>
References: <05d601d0f32d$679aa3d0$36cfeb70$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <e58eee1c3a58418eaf528e55d5ed28db@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Jennifer ..
If ok with colleagues, I suggest adding to the slide deck:

-          Brazil as one of the commenters on the jurisdiction issue, and

-          Sweden as one of the commenters on RZM issue
for the record and in line with our discussion in LA ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:49 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4

Dear All,

Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that contains edits to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83, InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)

Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD

Best Regards,

Jennifer


From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: ICG Slide deck v3

Dear All,

Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as requested by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:

"E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be part of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/6682d99f/attachment.html>

From jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br  Tue Sep 22 14:12:42 2015
From: jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br (Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:12:42 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] RES:  ICG Slide deck v4
In-Reply-To: <e58eee1c3a58418eaf528e55d5ed28db@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <05d601d0f32d$679aa3d0$36cfeb70$@icgsec.asia>
	<e58eee1c3a58418eaf528e55d5ed28db@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FE191F1D6@URANO01.itamaraty.local>

Thank you, Manal.

We support your suggestion.

Best regards,

Jandyr

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] Em nome de Manal Ismail
Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de setembro de 2015 10:50
Para: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4

Thanks Jennifer ..

If ok with colleagues, I suggest adding to the slide deck:

-          Brazil as one of the commenters on the jurisdiction issue, and 

-          Sweden as one of the commenters on RZM issue

for the record and in line with our discussion in LA ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:49 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4

 

Dear All,

 

Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that contains edits to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83, InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)

 

Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD <http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD>  

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

 

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: ICG Slide deck v3

 

Dear All,

 

Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as requested by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:

 

"E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be part of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 



From fmniebel at gmail.com  Tue Sep 22 14:18:03 2015
From: fmniebel at gmail.com (michael niebel)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:18:03 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
In-Reply-To: <e58eee1c3a58418eaf528e55d5ed28db@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <05d601d0f32d$679aa3d0$36cfeb70$@icgsec.asia>
	<e58eee1c3a58418eaf528e55d5ed28db@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <CAMK78HWwZha3Z2vzfOhAcXzpRgOp02TRdFkSGQj=Cn60dtma+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Support suggestion of Manal
Michael

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Jennifer ..
>
> If ok with colleagues, I suggest adding to the slide deck:
>
> -          Brazil as one of the commenters on the jurisdiction issue, and
>
> -          Sweden as one of the commenters on RZM issue
>
> for the record and in line with our discussion in LA ..
>
> Kind Regards
>
> --Manal
>
>
>
> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Jennifer Chung
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:49 AM
> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org
> *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that contains
> edits to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83,
> InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)
>
>
>
> Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia <jen at icgsec.asia>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
> *To:* 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> *Subject:* ICG Slide deck v3
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as
> requested by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:
>
>
>
> “E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be
> part of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)”
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/6d5e3627/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Tue Sep 22 14:39:20 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 07:39:20 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?RES=3A_ICG_Slide_deck_v4?=
Message-ID: <20150922143221.011DC1C158D@smtp.notifymdm.com>

Perhaps a note early in the devk the comments highlighted may be illustrative of the range of comment but may not detail all who commented?

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

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

From: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior [jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br]
Received: Tuesday, 22 Sep 2015, 7:13AM
To: 'Manal Ismail' [manal at tra.gov.eg]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4

Thank you, Manal.

We support your suggestion.

Best regards,

Jandyr

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] Em nome de Manal Ismail
Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de setembro de 2015 10:50
Para: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4

Thanks Jennifer ..

If ok with colleagues, I suggest adding to the slide deck:

-          Brazil as one of the commenters on the jurisdiction issue, and 

-          Sweden as one of the commenters on RZM issue

for the record and in line with our discussion in LA ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:49 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4

 

Dear All,

 

Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that contains edits to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83, InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)

 

Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD <http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD>  

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

 

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: ICG Slide deck v3

 

Dear All,

 

Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as requested by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:

 

"E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be part of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"

 

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  Tue Sep 22 14:46:15 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 10:46:15 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #23- Wednesday, 23 Sept 2015,
	11:00-12:30 UTC
Message-ID: <00f301d0f545$70238930$506a9b90$@icgsec.asia>

Dear ICG Members,

 

This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #23 is scheduled for
tomorrow:

 

**Wednesday, 23 September 2015**

11:00-12:30 UTC

 

See time zone conversion here: http://icgsec.asia/1EaeULB 

Announcement:
<https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/>
https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/ 

 

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

 

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

 

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



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

 

Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: ES, FR, ZH
and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please note
that Livestreaming translations in RU and PT will be unavailable for this
call, however a translation of the transcript will be provided after the
meeting.

 

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

 

Agenda TBD

 

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

 

Thank you!

 

Best regards

ICG Secretariat Team

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/ac073efb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/ac073efb/attachment.png>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep 22 16:30:17 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:30:17 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
In-Reply-To: <20150922143221.011DC1C158D@smtp.notifymdm.com>
References: <20150922143221.011DC1C158D@smtp.notifymdm.com>
Message-ID: <987994BF-EEB8-4F84-8380-3D3DA152AD3A@cooperw.in>

The deck already has that note in it.

We can add things but as agreed in the meeting, the deck cannot be viewed as an authoritative listing of every comment about every topic. 

Alissa

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Perhaps a note early in the devk the comments highlighted may be illustrative of the range of comment but may not detail all who commented?
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior [jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br]
> Received: Tuesday, 22 Sep 2015, 7:13AM
> To: 'Manal Ismail' [manal at tra.gov.eg]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
> Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
> 
> Thank you, Manal.
> 
> We support your suggestion.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jandyr
> 
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] Em nome de Manal Ismail
> Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de setembro de 2015 10:50
> Para: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
> 
> Thanks Jennifer ..
> 
> If ok with colleagues, I suggest adding to the slide deck:
> 
> -          Brazil as one of the commenters on the jurisdiction issue, and 
> 
> -          Sweden as one of the commenters on RZM issue
> 
> for the record and in line with our discussion in LA ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> --Manal
> 
> 
> 
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:49 AM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that contains edits to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83, InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)
> 
> 
> 
> Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD <http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD>  
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Jennifer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: ICG Slide deck v3
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as requested by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> "E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be part of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Jennifer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep 22 16:47:12 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:47:12 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda - call #25, Sept 23
Message-ID: <27FF6AA5-2685-4D8E-967E-67F2731294D5@cooperw.in>

Proposed agenda for our call on Sept 23:

1) Reports from PTI Subteams
Sub-team Slide 2: Housley, Barrett

Sub-team Slide 3: Knoben, Arkko, Barrett

Sub-team Slides 4, 5: Boyle, Mueller, Wilson, Arkko

2) RZM questions for CWG (Mueller)

3) ccTLD note for CWG (Boyle)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/8c07528f/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep 22 16:56:27 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:56:27 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda - call #25, Sept 23
In-Reply-To: <27FF6AA5-2685-4D8E-967E-67F2731294D5@cooperw.in>
References: <27FF6AA5-2685-4D8E-967E-67F2731294D5@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <F10E7B99-70A0-4E27-B9E2-5A50219A6448@cooperw.in>

I also should have said: the goal is to agree final text of notes to be sent to the OCs by the end of the call or shortly thereafter, if possible. So if sub-teams are proposing to ask questions or send notes to the OCs, they should send the text to the list before the call if at all possible.

Thanks,
Alissa


> On Sep 22, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> Proposed agenda for our call on Sept 23:
> 
> 1) Reports from PTI Subteams
> Sub-team Slide 2: Housley, Barrett
> 
> Sub-team Slide 3: Knoben, Arkko, Barrett
> 
> Sub-team Slides 4, 5: Boyle, Mueller, Wilson, Arkko
> 
> 2) RZM questions for CWG (Mueller)
> 
> 3) ccTLD note for CWG (Boyle)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/406d04ea/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Tue Sep 22 17:09:13 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:09:13 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
In-Reply-To: <20150922143221.011DC1C158D@smtp.notifymdm.com>
References: <20150922143221.011DC1C158D@smtp.notifymdm.com>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589FB6B1C4296C130898CC8AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

On the slide deck, in the geographic classification of comments on slide 4 I think it is misleading to classify all comments not associated with a particular country or region as "unknown." Many organizations (e.g., any AC, SO, ICANN Stakeholder Group (SG) and some business or civil society groups) are global or transnational in scope. "Unknown" implies that they have a country or region and we just don't know what it is. That may be the case for a few comments, but in most cases the organization in question is just not confined to a single country. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Joseph Alhadeff
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:39 AM
> To: manal at tra.gov.eg; jen at icgsec.asia; internal-cg at ianacg.org;
> jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
> 
> Perhaps a note early in the devk the comments highlighted may be
> illustrative of the range of comment but may not detail all who commented?
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior [jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br]
> Received: Tuesday, 22 Sep 2015, 7:13AM
> To: 'Manal Ismail' [manal at tra.gov.eg]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia];
> internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
> Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
> 
> Thank you, Manal.
> 
> We support your suggestion.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jandyr
> 
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] Em nome de Manal
> Ismail Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de setembro de 2015 10:50
> Para: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
> 
> Thanks Jennifer ..
> 
> If ok with colleagues, I suggest adding to the slide deck:
> 
> -          Brazil as one of the commenters on the jurisdiction issue, and
> 
> -          Sweden as one of the commenters on RZM issue
> 
> for the record and in line with our discussion in LA ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> --Manal
> 
> 
> 
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Jennifer Chung
> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:49 AM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that contains edits
> to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83,
> InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)
> 
> 
> 
> Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD
> <http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD>
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Jennifer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: ICG Slide deck v3
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as requested
> by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> "E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be part
> of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"
> 
> 
> 
> 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  Tue Sep 22 18:11:03 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 20:11:03 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda - call #25, Sept 23
In-Reply-To: <F10E7B99-70A0-4E27-B9E2-5A50219A6448@cooperw.in>
References: <27FF6AA5-2685-4D8E-967E-67F2731294D5@cooperw.in>
	<F10E7B99-70A0-4E27-B9E2-5A50219A6448@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <560199B7.1030108@ripe.net>



On 22.09.15 18:56 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I also should have said: the goal is to agree final text of notes to be
> sent to the OCs by the end of the call or shortly thereafter, if
> possible. So if sub-teams are proposing to ask questions or send notes
> to the OCs, they should send the text to the list before the call if at
> all possible.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa


A recurring question in the "Workability/Q4" comments is about the
relationship of Protocol Parameters and Numbers to PTI. The RIRs have
stated that they expect to contract with ICANN albeit that Alan has
indicated some flexibility in the matter at our previous meeting. I
cannot find a strong statement from the IETF, is there one?

I do not think we need to send a formal question about this at this time
because I expect such statements from both these OCs to their
communities anyway which we can use.

If anyone feels that this indeed warrants the overhead of formal
questions, they should says so now so that we see if that has sufficient
support to ask these questions.

Daniel


From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Tue Sep 22 18:15:25 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:15:25 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)
In-Reply-To: <8961B4A4-C996-4EAC-A16A-DAD80C196D25@cooperw.in>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B395E2@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<8961B4A4-C996-4EAC-A16A-DAD80C196D25@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3B04E@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Fine by me

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
Sent: 22 September 2015 00:19
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)

Martin,

Thank you. Comments below.

On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>> wrote:

Dear all,

Thanks all for a constructive and useful dialogue on Friday & Saturday.

In response to the action on me (item 3) on ccTLD comments, I suggest the following wording for the note to the CWG:

We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG).

The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.”

The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005).  This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether the proposal could be adapted accordingly.

I would suggest adding:

“If the CWG agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for paragraph 1036 and any associated footnotes so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined transition proposal."



We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283).  This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT.  While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member.  In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement.  We would welcome the CWG’s thoughts on this suggestion.

I would suggest deleting the last sentence above and replacing it with:

“If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment.”

Thanks,
Alissa



Keith Davidson and Wolf-Ulrich have both seen the proposed wording (although I have made some hopefully uncontroversial mods since then, so I’d welcome their confirmation that they are happy with the text).

Hope this helps


Martin

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/97b12d19/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Tue Sep 22 18:19:54 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:19:54 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minorly revised Q1 on RZM and totally revised Q2 on
	RZM
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589421EBA03757CF19EE765AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Responding to Alissa's suggestions...imagine the sound of a can of worms being opened.

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> sub “confirm whether” for “confirm that"

Sorry to be a stickler for language, but I find "confirm whether" to be bad English. "Whether" implies choosing among alternatives; e.g., "whether or not". "Confirm" implies certifying a particular, singular option as acceptable.  I don't think you can confirm whether. One can "determine whether" or "decide whether or not" something meets your requirements, or one can "confirm that" a specific option does meet your requirements. So, in case you think it is too leading (in which case we switch to "determine whether or not"), I would prefer to stick with "confirm that."

> Please insert a citation to the paragraph or section from the combined
> transition proposal that states the CWG’s requirements.

Good catch. Here is the entire question as so revised: 

1. Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150, sections 2 and 3 of Part 1 of the transition proposal.

IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL NOTE: 

In searching for the appropriate citation, I discovered paragraph 55 of our own Part 0, in which the ICG (that's us, folks!) says: 

"However, since there is currently no agreement between the RZM and the IANA functions operator for the Root Zone Management process, the ICG notes that some form of written agreement between the IANA functions operator and RZM that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation of the Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone Management process."

This text strongly suggests that a written agreement between IFO and RZM is a "requirement." But I cannot find an explicit statement to that effect from the CWG itself. What we do have, is a statement in 1150(2)(b) that:

" the new arrangements must provide a clear and effective mechanism to ensure that PTI can have its change requests for the Root Zone implemented in a timely manner by the Root Zone Maintainer (possibly via an agreement between the Root Zone Maintainer and the IFO)."

"Possibly." Should we, therefore, consider a "written agreement" a requirement? And if so, since we seem to have made it a requirement would it be useful for ICG to ask _itself_ whether the ICANN-Verisign proposal meets that requirement (hint: it doesn't). Or should we approach this issue in some other way?  

AND AS FOR QUESTION 2:

While searching for the appropriate citation, I may have found the missing reference to splitting of the IFO and RZM functions that everyone believed existed but no one could find. In Annex S, Draft Proposed Term Sheet, page 136 of the full proposal, the second bullet point in the 4th row says:

"Process flow for root zone management involves two roles that are performed by two different entities: 
    - PTI as the IANA Functions Operator
    - Verisign (or its successor) as the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM)."

The fourth bullet point in the same cell says: 

"Any amendment to the roles and responsibilities of PTI and the RZM with respect to root zone management will require approval of the ICANN board [and the members of ICANN or a special IFR]"

This is problematic. First, the reference to members and a special IFR, which would probably meet the public comment demands for "consultation" and accountability, are in brackets. What does that mean? Second, this text suggests that PTI and RZM are separate organizations (entities) more strongly than the text in 1158 (Principles), which only refers to them as different "roles" or "functions." 

I welcome additional comment on this, but in the interest of time I want to get a specific proposal on the table. So I propose that we update question 2 in the following way:

NEW QUESTION 2

2. The names part of the proposal contains subtle but significant discrepancies in the way it describes the roles of the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) and the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM). It also seems to contain different requirements for a process to change those roles. Paragraph 1158 in Part 1 of the transition proposal describes the RZM and the IANA functions operator as separate “roles” with distinct functions, and says "should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation." On the other hand Annex S, the Draft Proposed Term Sheet (page 136), describe the IFO and RZM as "two roles that are performed by two different entities," and adds "any amendment to the roles and responsibilities of PTI and the RZM ... will require approval of the ICANN board [and the members of ICANN or a special IFR]. 

Which of these two approaches better reflects the consensus of the names operational community: the one embodied in Annex S or the one embodied in paragraph 1158? Paragraph 1158 does not clearly rule out having the RZM and IFO in the same organization, as long as the "roles" and "function" are distinct. Whereas Annex S suggests (in bracketed language) that any change or merger in the roles would be subject to community accountability, 1158 suggests only a “wide community consultation?”' The ICG would like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation. Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate.

--MM

From mundy at tislabs.com  Tue Sep 22 19:16:25 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:16:25 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] RZM issue
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB5890081DC5E681D8A4148CAAC460@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR07MB5890081DC5E681D8A4148CAAC460@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <1294DE0D-C457-45EF-938C-AD94DF77D3EA@tislabs.com>

Folks,

I am in agreement with Milton’s analysis of the set of elements he describes.  In fact, I reached the same general conclusion when SSAC was producing the SAC067, 068 & 069 series, i.e., portions of the overall RZM process are in scope for our work but the NTIA / Verisign agreement was not.  I hope that I did not contribute to any of the confusion Martin points to in his email - If I did, I do apologize.

One of the challenging aspects of this is determining what is ‘in scope’ and what’s ‘out of scope’ since the actual activities that occur on an ongoing basis are guided by one agreement that is ‘in scope’ (IANA Functions Contract) and one agreement that is ‘out of scope’ (NTIA/Verisign agreement).  Although it was much earlier in this process, when SAC069 was published in Dec  2014, there are several portions that relate to this discussion.  In particular, Section 3.2 and Recommendations 5, 6, & 7 deal with aspects of this and might provide some ’thought material' for developing our Section 0 language.

Russ

On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

> Dear all:
> I am working on the Section 0 language and comment summary on Root Zone Management (RZM) as requested.
>  
> After reviewing the key transition documents and our own record of discussion and comment, I think we have made a bit of a mistake in our conceptualization of our relationship to the NTIA process. it appears that we have considered ‘RZM’ as a whole to be under NTIA’s remit and not ours. This is incorrect.
>  
> The only thing that NTIA has asserted exclusive ‘jurisdiction’ over is the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement, which it said would be the subject of a “related and parallel transition.” NTIA control of that process is quite appropriate, because the CA is a contract between VRSN and NTIA; only those two parties can change it. But there is nothing in the March 2014 announcement or anything else that says that NTIA is exclusively responsible for all aspects of RZM. Indeed, the CWG has already dealt with the authorization function, which is a critical part of RZM, and as part of its proposal CWG made many other suggestions and proposals related to the role of the IANA functions operator in RZM. While revision of the cooperative agreement is NTIA’s job exclusively, those aspects of RZM that touch directly on the IANA functions operator (IFO) are either joint responsibilities or part of the ICG’s remit.
>  
> From this I conclude that ICG should tone down its disclaimers about how this is all outside of its remit, and that we would be fully justified in insisting that any revisions in RZM that NTIA, ICANN and Verisign agree to as part of the revision of Verisign’s Cooperative agreement need to be consistent and compatible with the CWG’s proposals for the organization, functions and processes of the IFO.
> So I would propose that in addition to the clarification question we have already agreed to send, we add another request, asking the CWG to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal on RZM meets their requirements. This was suggested by Nominet UK and indirectly suggested by many others.
>  
> Comments?
>  
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/72278077/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep 22 19:22:58 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:22:58 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda - call #25, Sept 23
In-Reply-To: <560199B7.1030108@ripe.net>
References: <27FF6AA5-2685-4D8E-967E-67F2731294D5@cooperw.in>
	<F10E7B99-70A0-4E27-B9E2-5A50219A6448@cooperw.in>
	<560199B7.1030108@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <F4CF3FCD-90F4-46B7-A1C0-FC2D4E79CF47@cooperw.in>

I think the positions of both the IETF and the RIRs are clear. See IAB comments <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission72.pdf <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission72.pdf>>, CRISP team comments <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission133.pdf <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission133.pdf>>, and the RIRs’ draft SLA <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf>>. I also took an action (action item #6) to write this up for Part 0 so it will be clear in the proposal.

Alissa

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 22.09.15 18:56 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> I also should have said: the goal is to agree final text of notes to be
>> sent to the OCs by the end of the call or shortly thereafter, if
>> possible. So if sub-teams are proposing to ask questions or send notes
>> to the OCs, they should send the text to the list before the call if at
>> all possible.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
> 
> 
> A recurring question in the "Workability/Q4" comments is about the
> relationship of Protocol Parameters and Numbers to PTI. The RIRs have
> stated that they expect to contract with ICANN albeit that Alan has
> indicated some flexibility in the matter at our previous meeting. I
> cannot find a strong statement from the IETF, is there one?
> 
> I do not think we need to send a formal question about this at this time
> because I expect such statements from both these OCs to their
> communities anyway which we can use.
> 
> If anyone feels that this indeed warrants the overhead of formal
> questions, they should says so now so that we see if that has sufficient
> support to ask these questions.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/17309449/attachment.html>

From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Tue Sep 22 19:36:35 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:36:35 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda - call #25, Sept 23
In-Reply-To: <F4CF3FCD-90F4-46B7-A1C0-FC2D4E79CF47@cooperw.in>
References: <27FF6AA5-2685-4D8E-967E-67F2731294D5@cooperw.in>
	<F10E7B99-70A0-4E27-B9E2-5A50219A6448@cooperw.in>
	<560199B7.1030108@ripe.net>
	<F4CF3FCD-90F4-46B7-A1C0-FC2D4E79CF47@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <5601ADC3.1060402@ripe.net>



On 22.09.15 21:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I think the positions of both the IETF and the RIRs are clear. See IAB
> comments <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission72.pdf>,
> CRISP team comments
> <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission133.pdf>, and the
> RIRs’ draft SLA
> <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf>. 

Noted.
Others: as usual silence is taken as consent with not asking formal
questions about this.

I also
> took an action (action item #6) to write this up for Part 0 so it will
> be clear in the proposal.

Paul and I will gladly refer to any language you contribute ;-).

Daniel
> 
> Alissa
> 
>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22.09.15 18:56 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> I also should have said: the goal is to agree final text of notes to be
>>> sent to the OCs by the end of the call or shortly thereafter, if
>>> possible. So if sub-teams are proposing to ask questions or send notes
>>> to the OCs, they should send the text to the list before the call if at
>>> all possible.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>
>>
>> A recurring question in the "Workability/Q4" comments is about the
>> relationship of Protocol Parameters and Numbers to PTI. The RIRs have
>> stated that they expect to contract with ICANN albeit that Alan has
>> indicated some flexibility in the matter at our previous meeting. I
>> cannot find a strong statement from the IETF, is there one?
>>
>> I do not think we need to send a formal question about this at this time
>> because I expect such statements from both these OCs to their
>> communities anyway which we can use.
>>
>> If anyone feels that this indeed warrants the overhead of formal
>> questions, they should says so now so that we see if that has sufficient
>> support to ask these questions.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 


From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Tue Sep 22 19:40:45 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:40:45 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda - call #25, Sept 23
In-Reply-To: <F4CF3FCD-90F4-46B7-A1C0-FC2D4E79CF47@cooperw.in>
References: <27FF6AA5-2685-4D8E-967E-67F2731294D5@cooperw.in>
	<F10E7B99-70A0-4E27-B9E2-5A50219A6448@cooperw.in>
	<560199B7.1030108@ripe.net>
	<F4CF3FCD-90F4-46B7-A1C0-FC2D4E79CF47@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <729A96F0-7622-4A1D-83AF-D3FF67644B44@gmail.com>

Alissa,
Tks
I provided a short brief on the ICG f2f to CCWG call 52 held on 05-07 am today
By the way what is the situation for modifications to part Zero?
Kavouss


Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Sep 2015, at 12:22, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> I think the positions of both the IETF and the RIRs are clear. See IAB comments <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission72.pdf>, CRISP team comments <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission133.pdf>, and the RIRs’ draft SLA <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf>. I also took an action (action item #6) to write this up for Part 0 so it will be clear in the proposal.
> 
> Alissa
> 
>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 22.09.15 18:56 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> I also should have said: the goal is to agree final text of notes to be
>>> sent to the OCs by the end of the call or shortly thereafter, if
>>> possible. So if sub-teams are proposing to ask questions or send notes
>>> to the OCs, they should send the text to the list before the call if at
>>> all possible.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>> 
>> 
>> A recurring question in the "Workability/Q4" comments is about the
>> relationship of Protocol Parameters and Numbers to PTI. The RIRs have
>> stated that they expect to contract with ICANN albeit that Alan has
>> indicated some flexibility in the matter at our previous meeting. I
>> cannot find a strong statement from the IETF, is there one?
>> 
>> I do not think we need to send a formal question about this at this time
>> because I expect such statements from both these OCs to their
>> communities anyway which we can use.
>> 
>> If anyone feels that this indeed warrants the overhead of formal
>> questions, they should says so now so that we see if that has sufficient
>> support to ask these questions.
>> 
>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/7db2f2a8/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep 22 19:50:50 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:50:50 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minorly revised Q1 on RZM and totally revised Q2
	on RZM
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589421EBA03757CF19EE765AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR07MB589421EBA03757CF19EE765AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <C686E70A-4FD4-44BE-8F1B-468B8FAA0E10@cooperw.in>

Hi Milton,

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> Responding to Alissa's suggestions...imagine the sound of a can of worms being opened.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> sub “confirm whether” for “confirm that"
> 
> Sorry to be a stickler for language, but I find "confirm whether" to be bad English. "Whether" implies choosing among alternatives; e.g., "whether or not". "Confirm" implies certifying a particular, singular option as acceptable.  I don't think you can confirm whether. One can "determine whether" or "decide whether or not" something meets your requirements, or one can "confirm that" a specific option does meet your requirements. So, in case you think it is too leading (in which case we switch to "determine whether or not"), I would prefer to stick with "confirm that.”

I do think it’s too leading, unless you can point me to where the CWG has made any comment about the VeriSign/ICANN proposal already. If not, I would suggest “inform us about whether or not"

> 
>> Please insert a citation to the paragraph or section from the combined
>> transition proposal that states the CWG’s requirements.
> 
> Good catch. Here is the entire question as so revised: 
> 
> 1. Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150, sections 2 and 3 of Part 1 of the transition proposal.
> 
> IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL NOTE: 
> 
> In searching for the appropriate citation, I discovered paragraph 55 of our own Part 0, in which the ICG (that's us, folks!) says: 
> 
> "However, since there is currently no agreement between the RZM and the IANA functions operator for the Root Zone Management process, the ICG notes that some form of written agreement between the IANA functions operator and RZM that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation of the Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone Management process."
> 
> This text strongly suggests that a written agreement between IFO and RZM is a "requirement." But I cannot find an explicit statement to that effect from the CWG itself. What we do have, is a statement in 1150(2)(b) that:
> 
> " the new arrangements must provide a clear and effective mechanism to ensure that PTI can have its change requests for the Root Zone implemented in a timely manner by the Root Zone Maintainer (possibly via an agreement between the Root Zone Maintainer and the IFO)."
> 
> "Possibly." Should we, therefore, consider a "written agreement" a requirement? And if so, since we seem to have made it a requirement would it be useful for ICG to ask _itself_ whether the ICANN-Verisign proposal meets that requirement (hint: it doesn't). Or should we approach this issue in some other way?  

Interested in Russ Mundy’s opinion about the above since he authored paragraph 55. 

> 
> AND AS FOR QUESTION 2:

All of the below seems fine to me, with one editorial suggestion ...

> 
> While searching for the appropriate citation, I may have found the missing reference to splitting of the IFO and RZM functions that everyone believed existed but no one could find. In Annex S, Draft Proposed Term Sheet, page 136 of the full proposal, the second bullet point in the 4th row says:
> 
> "Process flow for root zone management involves two roles that are performed by two different entities: 
>    - PTI as the IANA Functions Operator
>    - Verisign (or its successor) as the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM)."
> 
> The fourth bullet point in the same cell says: 
> 
> "Any amendment to the roles and responsibilities of PTI and the RZM with respect to root zone management will require approval of the ICANN board [and the members of ICANN or a special IFR]"
> 
> This is problematic. First, the reference to members and a special IFR, which would probably meet the public comment demands for "consultation" and accountability, are in brackets. What does that mean? Second, this text suggests that PTI and RZM are separate organizations (entities) more strongly than the text in 1158 (Principles), which only refers to them as different "roles" or "functions." 
> 
> I welcome additional comment on this, but in the interest of time I want to get a specific proposal on the table. So I propose that we update question 2 in the following way:
> 
> NEW QUESTION 2
> 
> 2. The names part of the proposal contains subtle but significant discrepancies in the way it describes the roles of the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) and the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM). It also seems to contain different requirements for a process to change those roles. Paragraph 1158 in Part 1 of the transition proposal describes the RZM and the IANA functions operator as separate “roles” with distinct functions, and says "should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation." On the other hand Annex S, the Draft Proposed Term Sheet (page 136), describe the IFO and RZM as "two roles that are performed by two different entities," and adds "any amendment to the roles and responsibilities of PTI and the RZM ... will require approval of the ICANN board [and the members of ICANN or a special IFR]. 
> 
> Which of these two approaches better reflects the consensus of the names operational community: the one embodied in Annex S or the one embodied in paragraph 1158? Paragraph 1158 does not clearly rule out having the RZM and IFO in the same organization, as long as the "roles" and "function" are distinct. Whereas Annex S suggests (in bracketed language) that any change or merger in the roles would be subject to community accountability, 1158 suggests only a “wide community consultation?”’

The above sentence should end in a period rather than a question mark.

Thanks,
Alissa

> The ICG would like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation. Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate.
> 
> --MM



From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com  Tue Sep 22 20:34:43 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:34:43 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum
In-Reply-To: <56015342.6020008@ripe.net>
References: <01b101d0f4b0$cc75d480$65617d80$@icgsec.asia>
	<56015342.6020008@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <3A8CD7A5-3C38-4218-815D-1CF3AA42CB64@Internet-Matters.com>

+1

Lynn

On Sep 22, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:

> I support forwarding this to CCWG quickly and without comment.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 21.09.15 23:02 , Jennifer Chung wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please find the comment received on the ICG forum, details below:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sunday 20 Sept: Richard Hill – “Process Concerns” -
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-September/000005.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The comment requests that the ICG forward the comment to
>> CCWG-Accountability.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 Lynn at LStAmour.org  Tue Sep 22 20:47:05 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:47:05 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)
In-Reply-To: <8961B4A4-C996-4EAC-A16A-DAD80C196D25@cooperw.in>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B395E2@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<8961B4A4-C996-4EAC-A16A-DAD80C196D25@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <60CD5294-FBA6-4CF1-B284-1F8DA9831AA0@LStAmour.org>

I support this (including Alissa's comments).

Lynn

On Sep 21, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Martin,
> 
> Thank you. Comments below.
> 
>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>>  
>> Thanks all for a constructive and useful dialogue on Friday & Saturday.
>>  
>> In response to the action on me (item 3) on ccTLD comments, I suggest the following wording for the note to the CWG:
>>  
>> We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG).
>>  
>> The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.”
>>  
>> The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005).  This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether the proposal could be adapted accordingly.
> 
> I would suggest adding:
> 
> “If the CWG agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for paragraph 1036 and any associated footnotes so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined transition proposal."
> 
>>  
>> We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283).  This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT.  While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member.  In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement.  We would welcome the CWG’s thoughts on this suggestion.
> 
> I would suggest deleting the last sentence above and replacing it with:
> 
> “If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment.”
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
>>  
>> Keith Davidson and Wolf-Ulrich have both seen the proposed wording (although I have made some hopefully uncontroversial mods since then, so I’d welcome their confirmation that they are happy with the text).
>>  
>> Hope this helps
>>  
>>  
>> 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 jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Sep 22 20:48:34 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:48:34 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Blog post: IANA Stewardship Transition: Full Steam
	Ahead
Message-ID: <000201d0f578$0d7f94d0$287ebe70$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

The ICG chairs have posted a blog post "IANA Stewardship Transition: Full
Steam Ahead".  Link: https://www.ianacg.org/?p=1168 

 

Here are the social media posts that link back, please feel free to share
with your communities!

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/646425091006459904

FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1701824080046224 

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/acd8bfa8/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Tue Sep 22 22:02:01 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:02:01 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3
Message-ID: <13B7524F80C24613923ADC57D4F14E04@WUKPC>

All,

here’s what the team has elaborated so far but we had not finally “approved”. So discussion remains open for all.
I’ll try to send draft ICG questions tomorrow before the call.

We note that the heading “B”, sub-heading B6, and item B6d, appear on both slides 2 and 3 of the slide deck "PTI related issues-v1.pdf”.  They are dealt with by another sub-team under slide 2, so this sub-team is focusing on “C”. This means that only #29, 31, 50, 51, 80, 81, 92, 95, 102, 103, 107 and 121 are relevant for our task.


Specific statements with regards to the PTI board can be drawn from para 1111 to 1114 of the ICG proposal.

Issues raised in the comments:
  1.. limit explicitly the PTI board’s function and scope of powers to the operational oversight of IANA functions or limit the PTI remit 
  2.. provide additional safeguards to ensure PTI remains accountable to the broader multistakeholder community. 
  3.. the composition of the PTI board should ensure who bears ultimate responsibility for the IANA performance (ICANN board or PTI board): e.g. 1. subset of ICANN board members or 2. coming more from the community or 3. mix; caution against capture by governments or industry 
  4.. criteria for board member selection to be established: e.g.  professional knowledge, geographical balance, community representation, conflict of interest, gender balance, able to grasp and attend to any public interest or human rights concern that the board might face, overall neutrality 
  5.. PTI board selection process should be discussed including review in case of PTI separation
Conclusion:
  a.. To 1.:
  From para 1112 of the proposal: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” This should read “...board of directors and who have...” since it’s related to the board rather than to the PTI as a whole (derived from Sidley, too).
  From the content it seems to be clear that the PTI board’s scope is not on the operations itself rather than on the operations’ oversight. To the avoidance of doubt the “minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers” could be described in detail.
  Suggestion: ask the CWG whether this could be provided. If yes, send us verbatim text. ICG question to follow.
  a.. To 2.:
  The “broader community” as well as the operational communities are represented in the CWG. It’s up to them to elaborate on the right level of accountability.
  Suggestion: no ICG action required
  a.. To 3.:
  The ultimate responsibility for the IANA performance should be undoubtedly clear.
  Suggestion: ask the CWG for related discussion and sending verbatim text. ICG question to follow.
  a.. To 4. and 5.:
  implementation topics. Perhaps the ICG should explicitly say so in section 0.
  Question here: should a framework for the related implementation be asked for , and to what extend? Otherwise no ICG action required.
  ICG question to follow.
  a.. Regarding limitation of PTI’s remit:
  The proposal should be clear that PTI should operationally take over 1:1 IANA’s present tasks and should be limited to this. PTI’s board obligations shall cover the operations oversight. We can ask CWG whether both is clearly expressed in the proposal and  if not and if they agree then they may provide verbatim text.
  ICG question to follow.
Comments welcome!

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/a095330a/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep 22 22:30:21 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:30:21 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda - call #25, Sept 23
In-Reply-To: <729A96F0-7622-4A1D-83AF-D3FF67644B44@gmail.com>
References: <27FF6AA5-2685-4D8E-967E-67F2731294D5@cooperw.in>
	<F10E7B99-70A0-4E27-B9E2-5A50219A6448@cooperw.in>
	<560199B7.1030108@ripe.net>
	<F4CF3FCD-90F4-46B7-A1C0-FC2D4E79CF47@cooperw.in>
	<729A96F0-7622-4A1D-83AF-D3FF67644B44@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <357B02CA-3024-4980-8FEA-B00340793180@cooperw.in>

Hi Kavouss,

Thanks. The proposed updates to Part 0 that were assigned to various people at the F2F are due Sept 27 for review on the mailing list next week.

Alissa

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Alissa,
> Tks
> I provided a short brief on the ICG f2f to CCWG call 52 held on 05-07 am today
> By the way what is the situation for modifications to part Zero?
> Kavouss
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 22 Sep 2015, at 12:22, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
> 
>> I think the positions of both the IETF and the RIRs are clear. See IAB comments <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission72.pdf <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission72.pdf>>, CRISP team comments <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission133.pdf <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission133.pdf>>, and the RIRs’ draft SLA <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf>>. I also took an action (action item #6) to write this up for Part 0 so it will be clear in the proposal.
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 22.09.15 18:56 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>> I also should have said: the goal is to agree final text of notes to be
>>>> sent to the OCs by the end of the call or shortly thereafter, if
>>>> possible. So if sub-teams are proposing to ask questions or send notes
>>>> to the OCs, they should send the text to the list before the call if at
>>>> all possible.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A recurring question in the "Workability/Q4" comments is about the
>>> relationship of Protocol Parameters and Numbers to PTI. The RIRs have
>>> stated that they expect to contract with ICANN albeit that Alan has
>>> indicated some flexibility in the matter at our previous meeting. I
>>> cannot find a strong statement from the IETF, is there one?
>>> 
>>> I do not think we need to send a formal question about this at this time
>>> because I expect such statements from both these OCs to their
>>> communities anyway which we can use.
>>> 
>>> If anyone feels that this indeed warrants the overhead of formal
>>> questions, they should says so now so that we see if that has sufficient
>>> support to ask these questions.
>>> 
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/2f200f71/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep 22 23:12:51 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:12:51 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3
In-Reply-To: <13B7524F80C24613923ADC57D4F14E04@WUKPC>
References: <13B7524F80C24613923ADC57D4F14E04@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <F5C48260-EE47-4BA5-AEB2-6A40EB944C0A@cooperw.in>

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

Thanks. One question below.

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 3:02 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> All,
>  
> here’s what the team has elaborated so far but we had not finally “approved”. So discussion remains open for all.
> I’ll try to send draft ICG questions tomorrow before the call.
>  
> We note that the heading “B”, sub-heading B6, and item B6d, appear on both slides 2 and 3 of the slide deck "PTI related issues-v1.pdf”.  They are dealt with by another sub-team under slide 2, so this sub-team is focusing on “C”. This means that only #29, 31, 50, 51, 80, 81, 92, 95, 102, 103, 107 and 121 are relevant for our task.
>  
> Specific statements with regards to the PTI board can be drawn from para 1111 to 1114 of the ICG proposal.
>  
> Issues raised in the comments:
> limit explicitly the PTI board’s function and scope of powers to the operational oversight of IANA functions or limit the PTI remit
> provide additional safeguards to ensure PTI remains accountable to the broader multistakeholder community.
> the composition of the PTI board should ensure who bears ultimate responsibility for the IANA performance (ICANN board or PTI board): e.g. 1. subset of ICANN board members or 2. coming more from the community or 3. mix; caution against capture by governments or industry
I don’t fully understand this summary of the comments. The CWG proposal has a whole framework for establishing SLEs and reviewing IANA’s performance on a regular basis. Are the commenters questioning whether the PTI Board has a role related to the performance of the naming functions? Or something else?

Thanks,
Alissa
> criteria for board member selection to be established: e.g.  professional knowledge, geographical balance, community representation, conflict of interest, gender balance, able to grasp and attend to any public interest or human rights concern that the board might face, overall neutrality
> PTI board selection process should be discussed including review in case of PTI separation
> Conclusion:
> To 1.:
>> From para 1112 of the proposal: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” This should read “...board of directors and who have...” since it’s related to the board rather than to the PTI as a whole (derived from Sidley, too).
>> From the content it seems to be clear that the PTI board’s scope is not on the operations itself rather than on the operations’ oversight. To the avoidance of doubt the “minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers” could be described in detail.
>> Suggestion: ask the CWG whether this could be provided. If yes, send us verbatim text. ICG question to follow.
> To 2.:
>> The “broader community” as well as the operational communities are represented in the CWG. It’s up to them to elaborate on the right level of accountability.
>> Suggestion: no ICG action required
> To 3.:
>> The ultimate responsibility for the IANA performance should be undoubtedly clear.
>> Suggestion: ask the CWG for related discussion and sending verbatim text. ICG question to follow.
> To 4. and 5.:
>> implementation topics. Perhaps the ICG should explicitly say so in section 0.
>> Question here: should a framework for the related implementation be asked for , and to what extend? Otherwise no ICG action required.
>> ICG question to follow.
> Regarding limitation of PTI’s remit:
>> The proposal should be clear that PTI should operationally take over 1:1 IANA’s present tasks and should be limited to this. PTI’s board obligations shall cover the operations oversight. We can ask CWG whether both is clearly expressed in the proposal and  if not and if they agree then they may provide verbatim text.
>> ICG question to follow.
> Comments welcome!
>  
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/313a7033/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep 22 23:17:35 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:17:35 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B395E2@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B395E2@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <2C104FCA-123F-40BF-8078-8378199FB63A@cooperw.in>

Upon further reflection I would suggest one addition below.

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
>  
> Thanks all for a constructive and useful dialogue on Friday & Saturday.
>  
> In response to the action on me (item 3) on ccTLD comments, I suggest the following wording for the note to the CWG:
>  
> We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG).
>  
> The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.”

I would suggest adding an additional sentence at the end of the paragraph above:

“Please let us know if you agree to this amendment.”

Thanks,
Alissa

>  
> The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005).  This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether the proposal could be adapted accordingly.
>  
> We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283).  This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT.  While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member.  In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement.  We would welcome the CWG’s thoughts on this suggestion.
>  
> Keith Davidson and Wolf-Ulrich have both seen the proposed wording (although I have made some hopefully uncontroversial mods since then, so I’d welcome their confirmation that they are happy with the text).
>  
> Hope this helps
>  
>  
> Martin
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/b3dacee8/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Sep 22 23:27:57 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:27:57 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] document compiling OC questions
Message-ID: <CF50CE90-B21B-4366-A4FF-4A51A52FB614@cooperw.in>

I thought having the OC questions in one place would make it easier to live-edit on the call if necessary: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hx06iasdvh3kd4/questions-for-OCs-v0.docx?dl=0 (also attached)

I’ll try to update this before the call if changes come in but the call is at 4:00 in my time zone so no guarantees.

Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: questions-for-OCs-v0.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 141756 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150922/599408c0/attachment.docx>

From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Wed Sep 23 00:49:55 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 02:49:55 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 Draft Text on Critisisms about Complexity and
	Size
In-Reply-To: <357B02CA-3024-4980-8FEA-B00340793180@cooperw.in>
References: <27FF6AA5-2685-4D8E-967E-67F2731294D5@cooperw.in>
	<F10E7B99-70A0-4E27-B9E2-5A50219A6448@cooperw.in>
	<560199B7.1030108@ripe.net>
	<F4CF3FCD-90F4-46B7-A1C0-FC2D4E79CF47@cooperw.in>
	<729A96F0-7622-4A1D-83AF-D3FF67644B44@gmail.com>
	<357B02CA-3024-4980-8FEA-B00340793180@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <5601F733.4040504@ripe.net>



On 23.09.15 0:30 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Kavouss,
> 
> Thanks. The proposed updates to Part 0 that were assigned to various
> people at the F2F are due Sept 27 for review on the mailing list next week.
> 
> Alissa

And here is the assignment from Paul and Daniel.

We'll leave it to the editor where to weave it in
after the "committee-editing" stage. ;-)

Daniel

-------

Some comments have suggested that the ICG proposal is unexpectedly
or overly complex, and in some cases implied that this perceived
complexity represents a threat to the workability of the proposal.

It is true that the ICG proposal is a lengthy document: It contains three
substantial components which are very detailed and also different in
structure and content, making it difficult for any one observer to fully
absorb.  However this structure is a direct result of the ICG's chosen
approach to the transition planning process, namely to recognise that
the IANA serves three distinct operational communities and to allow them
to devise their respective plans independently, according to their
own needs, priorities and processes.

The ICG's chosen approach could be regarded as an application of the
subsidiarity principle, whereby the solution to any given problem should
be located as close as possible to those who are affected by it; which
in a bottom up process inevitably results in a variety of independent
outcomes which are naturally diverse.  The ICG believes that this
variety of approaches, which is clearly apparent in the transition
proposal, does not in itself represent complexity.  Rather it represents
a large body of work, but a body which is cleanly divided amongst the
separate proposals, and which features, as expected, few interactions or
dependencies among those 3 components.

At the outset of its work the ICG has considered a different process
with an aim to produce a more uniform singular solution.  However, the
ICG felt that such an approach would have been extremely challenging,
and less likely to produce a single plan with the full support of the
entire community.  It is possible in fact that such a singular solution
would turn out be more complex than the plan which has been produced.

One final consideration, related again to the volume of work rather than
to complexity, is that the implementation of each of the 3 plans will
impose substantial workload on the IANA.  This needs to be managed
carefully during the implementation period, in consultation with the
communities regarding respective requirements and priorities, in order
to ensure that the transition takes place within the required timeframe.


From mundy at tislabs.com  Wed Sep 23 02:52:59 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 22:52:59 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the CWG on RZM
In-Reply-To: <3B4105E2-0F48-4151-B2B1-887CC20ED955@cooperw.in>
References: <DM2PR07MB5895A70A1E8AA6DDF53A03AAC460@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<3B4105E2-0F48-4151-B2B1-887CC20ED955@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <E5BD4F7D-62F8-42EB-81BE-FCE79EC4E52A@tislabs.com>

Folks,

I think having the additional question added is appropriate but I think that it seems to be better ‘fit’ for the order of the questions to be flipped/reversed.

More suggestions inline below:

On Sep 21, 2015, at 7:13 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> 
>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Here are my proposed questions. The second one reflects all the edits we discussed at the face to face meeting, though there will probably still be some quibbles with it. The first is a new one.
>> --MM
>> 
>> 2 RZM QUESTIONS FOR THE NAMES OC:
>> 
>> 1.	Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root
> 
> sub “confirm whether” for “confirm that”

Agree with this suggestion.

I think that it would also be appropriate to include the specific url where the proposal is posted:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf

since I don’t think that the reference is included in the CWG proposal.

> 
>> Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements
> 
> Please insert a citation to the paragraph or section from the combined transition proposal that states the CWG’s requirements.

I think that this is a good suggestion but I was unable to locate a place in the CWG proposal that identified these requirements.

> 
>> 
>> 2.	Based on comments received in the ICG's public comment period, the ICG seeks clarification from the CWG on the following matter.
> 
> Since we will be sending multiple questions, I think we can move the above sentence up above all of the questions and sub “matters” for “matter.”

I agree

Russ

> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
>> Paragraph 1158 in the CWG portion of the transition proposal (Part 1) notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate "roles" with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to "make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification," did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or the IFO should not become the RZM without the proposal to make that change first being subject to a "wide community consultation?"' The ICG would also like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation. Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Wed Sep 23 03:04:57 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:04:57 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589FB6B1C4296C130898CC8AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20150922143221.011DC1C158D@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<DM2PR07MB589FB6B1C4296C130898CC8AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <817AA21A-9D36-4983-81EE-918057BDCB7B@tislabs.com>

I agree with Milton that including some kind of global entity identifier would be appropriate.  RussM

On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

> On the slide deck, in the geographic classification of comments on slide 4 I think it is misleading to classify all comments not associated with a particular country or region as "unknown." Many organizations (e.g., any AC, SO, ICANN Stakeholder Group (SG) and some business or civil society groups) are global or transnational in scope. "Unknown" implies that they have a country or region and we just don't know what it is. That may be the case for a few comments, but in most cases the organization in question is just not confined to a single country. 
> 
> --MM
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Joseph Alhadeff
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:39 AM
>> To: manal at tra.gov.eg; jen at icgsec.asia; internal-cg at ianacg.org;
>> jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
>> 
>> Perhaps a note early in the devk the comments highlighted may be
>> illustrative of the range of comment but may not detail all who commented?
>> 
>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> From: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior [jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br]
>> Received: Tuesday, 22 Sep 2015, 7:13AM
>> To: 'Manal Ismail' [manal at tra.gov.eg]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia];
>> internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
>> 
>> Thank you, Manal.
>> 
>> We support your suggestion.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Jandyr
>> 
>> -----Mensagem original-----
>> De: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] Em nome de Manal
>> Ismail Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de setembro de 2015 10:50
>> Para: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
>> 
>> Thanks Jennifer ..
>> 
>> If ok with colleagues, I suggest adding to the slide deck:
>> 
>> -          Brazil as one of the commenters on the jurisdiction issue, and
>> 
>> -          Sweden as one of the commenters on RZM issue
>> 
>> for the record and in line with our discussion in LA ..
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> 
>> --Manal
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Jennifer Chung
>> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:49 AM
>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that contains edits
>> to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83,
>> InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD
>> <http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jennifer
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: ICG Slide deck v3
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as requested
>> by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> "E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be part
>> of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 mundy at tislabs.com  Wed Sep 23 03:18:25 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:18:25 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)
In-Reply-To: <60CD5294-FBA6-4CF1-B284-1F8DA9831AA0@LStAmour.org>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B395E2@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<8961B4A4-C996-4EAC-A16A-DAD80C196D25@cooperw.in>
	<60CD5294-FBA6-4CF1-B284-1F8DA9831AA0@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <E6D16A34-BE88-4F4C-A345-E43DB181E104@tislabs.com>

+1  RussM

On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:

> I support this (including Alissa's comments).
> 
> Lynn
> 
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> Martin,
>> 
>> Thank you. Comments below.
>> 
>>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> Thanks all for a constructive and useful dialogue on Friday & Saturday.
>>> 
>>> In response to the action on me (item 3) on ccTLD comments, I suggest the following wording for the note to the CWG:
>>> 
>>> We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG).
>>> 
>>> The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.”
>>> 
>>> The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005).  This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether the proposal could be adapted accordingly.
>> 
>> I would suggest adding:
>> 
>> “If the CWG agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for paragraph 1036 and any associated footnotes so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined transition proposal."
>> 
>>> 
>>> We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283).  This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT.  While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member.  In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement.  We would welcome the CWG’s thoughts on this suggestion.
>> 
>> I would suggest deleting the last sentence above and replacing it with:
>> 
>> “If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment.”
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>>> 
>>> Keith Davidson and Wolf-Ulrich have both seen the proposed wording (although I have made some hopefully uncontroversial mods since then, so I’d welcome their confirmation that they are happy with the text).
>>> 
>>> Hope this helps
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Wed Sep 23 04:58:32 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:58:32 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minorly revised Q1 on RZM and totally revised Q2
	on RZM
In-Reply-To: <C686E70A-4FD4-44BE-8F1B-468B8FAA0E10@cooperw.in>
References: <DM2PR07MB589421EBA03757CF19EE765AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<C686E70A-4FD4-44BE-8F1B-468B8FAA0E10@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <89E252D3-2700-4177-B934-2331E3799F7A@tislabs.com>

Responses inline below.  RussM

On Sep 22, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi Milton,
> 
>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Responding to Alissa's suggestions...imagine the sound of a can of worms being opened.
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> 
>>> sub “confirm whether” for “confirm that"
>> 
>> Sorry to be a stickler for language, but I find "confirm whether" to be bad English. "Whether" implies choosing among alternatives; e.g., "whether or not". "Confirm" implies certifying a particular, singular option as acceptable.  I don't think you can confirm whether. One can "determine whether" or "decide whether or not" something meets your requirements, or one can "confirm that" a specific option does meet your requirements. So, in case you think it is too leading (in which case we switch to "determine whether or not"), I would prefer to stick with "confirm that.”
> 
> I do think it’s too leading, unless you can point me to where the CWG has made any comment about the VeriSign/ICANN proposal already. If not, I would suggest “inform us about whether or not”

I’ve read the newer version in the Word docx sent a couple of hours ago and am fine with that wording.

> 
>> 
>>> Please insert a citation to the paragraph or section from the combined
>>> transition proposal that states the CWG’s requirements.
>> 
>> Good catch. Here is the entire question as so revised: 
>> 
>> 1. Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150, sections 2 and 3 of Part 1 of the transition proposal.
>> 
>> IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL NOTE: 
>> 
>> In searching for the appropriate citation, I discovered paragraph 55 of our own Part 0, in which the ICG (that's us, folks!) says: 
>> 
>> "However, since there is currently no agreement between the RZM and the IANA functions operator for the Root Zone Management process, the ICG notes that some form of written agreement between the IANA functions operator and RZM that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation of the Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone Management process."
>> 
>> This text strongly suggests that a written agreement between IFO and RZM is a "requirement." But I cannot find an explicit statement to that effect from the CWG itself. What we do have, is a statement in 1150(2)(b) that:
>> 
>> " the new arrangements must provide a clear and effective mechanism to ensure that PTI can have its change requests for the Root Zone implemented in a timely manner by the Root Zone Maintainer (possibly via an agreement between the Root Zone Maintainer and the IFO)."
>> 
>> "Possibly." Should we, therefore, consider a "written agreement" a requirement? And if so, since we seem to have made it a requirement would it be useful for ICG to ask _itself_ whether the ICANN-Verisign proposal meets that requirement (hint: it doesn't). Or should we approach this issue in some other way?  
> 
> Interested in Russ Mundy’s opinion about the above since he authored paragraph 55. 

As I wrote (received suggestions & rewrote) the section, the primary intent was to point out that no written agreement existed between the IFO & RZM and the CWG proposal was not particularly clear about how this was going to be handled.  On the other hand, it does not seem to be within the ICG remit to define details about the content of the agreement or what organizational entities should sign it.

Since there are root zone management requirements and impacts identified in multiple parts of the CWG proposal including section 1150, annex F, annex K, annex P, annex R and annex S - none of these had any definition or description of how the IFO & RZM would accomplish these activities.

> 
>> 
>> AND AS FOR QUESTION 2:
> 
> All of the below seems fine to me, with one editorial suggestion ...
> 
>> 
>> While searching for the appropriate citation, I may have found the missing reference to splitting of the IFO and RZM functions that everyone believed existed but no one could find. In Annex S, Draft Proposed Term Sheet, page 136 of the full proposal, the second bullet point in the 4th row says:
>> 
>> "Process flow for root zone management involves two roles that are performed by two different entities: 
>>   - PTI as the IANA Functions Operator
>>   - Verisign (or its successor) as the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM)."
>> 
>> The fourth bullet point in the same cell says: 
>> 
>> "Any amendment to the roles and responsibilities of PTI and the RZM with respect to root zone management will require approval of the ICANN board [and the members of ICANN or a special IFR]"
>> 
>> This is problematic. First, the reference to members and a special IFR, which would probably meet the public comment demands for "consultation" and accountability, are in brackets. What does that mean? Second, this text suggests that PTI and RZM are separate organizations (entities) more strongly than the text in 1158 (Principles), which only refers to them as different "roles" or "functions." 
>> 
>> I welcome additional comment on this, but in the interest of time I want to get a specific proposal on the table. So I propose that we update question 2 in the following way:
>> 
>> NEW QUESTION 2
>> 
>> 2. The names part of the proposal contains subtle but significant discrepancies in the way it describes the roles of the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) and the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM). It also seems to contain different requirements for a process to change those roles. Paragraph 1158 in Part 1 of the transition proposal describes the RZM and the IANA functions operator as separate “roles” with distinct functions, and says "should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation." On the other hand Annex S, the Draft Proposed Term Sheet (page 136), describe the IFO and RZM as "two roles that are performed by two different entities," and adds "any amendment to the roles and responsibilities of PTI and the RZM ... will require approval of the ICANN board [and the members of ICANN or a special IFR]. 
>> 
>> Which of these two approaches better reflects the consensus of the names operational community: the one embodied in Annex S or the one embodied in paragraph 1158? Paragraph 1158 does not clearly rule out having the RZM and IFO in the same organization, as long as the "roles" and "function" are distinct. Whereas Annex S suggests (in bracketed language) that any change or merger in the roles would be subject to community accountability, 1158 suggests only a “wide community consultation?”’
> 
> The above sentence should end in a period rather than a question mark.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
>> The ICG would like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation. Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate.
>> 
>> --MM
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Wed Sep 23 05:09:20 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 01:09:20 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] document compiling OC questions
In-Reply-To: <CF50CE90-B21B-4366-A4FF-4A51A52FB614@cooperw.in>
References: <CF50CE90-B21B-4366-A4FF-4A51A52FB614@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <D59B2DE8-9001-440C-A11D-518C9048EC37@tislabs.com>


Alissa, thanks for putting this together - it’s very helpful.

I think that we agreed at our last f2f meeting that it would be best to provide suggested text changes rather than editing the word documents so I’m going to suggest some changes a portion of the first RZM question:

Currently reads:  … requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150, sections 2 and 3 of Part 1 of the …

Suggested change:  … requirements expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the  … 


RussM

On Sep 22, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> I thought having the OC questions in one place would make it easier to live-edit on the call if necessary: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hx06iasdvh3kd4/questions-for-OCs-v0.docx?dl=0 (also attached)
> 
> I’ll try to update this before the call if changes come in but the call is at 4:00 in my time zone so no guarantees.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> <questions-for-OCs-v0.docx>_______________________________________________
> 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  Wed Sep 23 05:52:32 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 22:52:32 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] PTI Slide 2 action items
Message-ID: <20150923055232.GC1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

Russ Housley and Alan Barrett were asked "to do the next level filtering for PTI related issues listed in the PTI slide deck, review comments received, and make recommendations for ICG course of action (http://icgsec.asia/1FTPuNB)” for those items on slide 2.

Slide 2 contains the following text:

> CRISP / IANAPLAN - PTI
>
> B. (B. Carpenter-2, R. Dara-23, Google-31, Dyn-34, CONAC-50, 
> ISPCP-64, IAB-72, J. Panday- 89, IA-103, F. Hopkinson-105, 
> CDT-107, P. Nagaraj/G. Varma-113, NCSG-114, Access-116, ICANN 
> Board-121, Intel-122, K. McCarthy-128, DSCI-130, CRISP-133)
>
> B1. Clarify that IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN, not PTI
> B1a Affirmed by 72, 133
>
> B2. IETF and RIR MoUs/SLAs need to clarify that subcontracts are allowed
>
> B3. Details of subcontract(s) between ICANN and PTI for protocol 
> parameters and numbers need to be worked out during proposal 
> phase
>
> B6. Performance reviews of IFO; participation of OCs in IFR, CSC
>
> B6a. Proposal should clarify that IFR applies only to names (34, 72),
> CSC applies only to names (2)
>
> B6b. Numbers and protocol communities do not plan to participate 
> in IFR or CSC (72, 133)
>
> B6d. Complying with IFR recommendations should be mandatory for PTI (80)
>
> B7. NRO/RIRs not capable of holding contract with ICANN (105)
>
> Clarification exists in comment 72 and 133, but question is whether:
> - Do 72 and 133 cover the issue?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be included in ICG text?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be part of the CRISP proposal?


Our comments are:

> B1. Clarify that IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN, not PTI
> B1a Affirmed by 72, 133

The proposal from the IANAPLAN and CRISP groups were 
clear that the IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN.  
This has also been confirmed in a comment from the IAB 
(comment number 72), and in a draft SLA from the RIRs 
<https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf>, 
and in question 8 of the ICG FAQ 
<https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-faq/>

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> B2. IETF and RIR MoUs/SLAs need to clarify that subcontracts are allowed

The existing MoU/SLA between the IETF and ICANN 
<https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-en> 
is silent about subcontracting, and 
therefore implicitly allows subcontracting.  The 
draft contract/SLA between the RIRs and ICANN 
<https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf> 
allows subcontracting with permission.  Question 8 of the ICG FAQ 
<https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-faq/> 
also says that subcontracting is allowed.

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> B3. Details of subcontract(s) between ICANN and PTI for protocol 
> parameters and numbers need to be worked out during proposal 
> phase

This is an implementation issue.  Any contract between ICANN and 
PTI would need to satisfy the CWG-Stewardship requirements for the 
names functions, and satisfy the IETF and RIRs’ contracts with 
ICANN for the protocol parameters and numbers components.

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> B6. Performance reviews of IFO; participation of OCs in IFR, CSC
>
> B6a. Proposal should clarify that IFR applies only to names (34, 72),
> CSC applies only to names (2)

We agree that clarity is needed, and note that a similar issue 
exists with the terms “IFO” and “IANA Functions Operator” 
in the CWG-Stewardship proposal.

Proposed ICG action:
a: Ask CWG-Stewardship for confirmation that the terms “IFO” 
and IANA Functions Operator” in the names proposal apply only to 
the names part of the IANA functions;
b: ask CWG-Stewardship for confirmation that the CSC and IFR apply 
only to the names part of the IANA functions;
c: edit the FAQ and part 0 of the combined proposal to provide clarity.

> B6b. Numbers and protocol communities do not plan to participate 
> in IFR or CSC (72, 133)

The protocol parameters community has made it clear (see comment 
72) that they do not intend to participate in committees related 
to names functions.  Alan Barrett thinks that the numbers 
community indicated that, if they participated in these processes 
at all, it would be only because the numbers community uses the 
.ARPA domain name, but he was unable to find a clear statement of 
that principle.

Proposed ICG action:
a: Ask CWG-Stewardship whether .ARPA is included in the CSC and IFR processes.
b: Ask CRISP whether the numbers community will participate in the 
CSC and IFR processes, and whether the answer depends on whether 
or .ARPA is included or excluded.
c: Edit the FAQ and part 0 of the combined proposal to provide clarity.

> B6d. Complying with IFR recommendations should be mandatory for PTI (80)

Comment 80 (the english translation) says “We suggest the 
further clarification of whether the reviewing decisions or 
comments from IFR and Special IFR are mandatory to PTI, and that 
the manner in which to ensure that the reviewing comments from IFR 
and Special IFR can be implemented be made clear.”

Proposed ICG action: Ask CWG-Stewardship for clarification 
on whether PTI compliance 9s mandatory when decisions or 
recommendations are made by IFR or special IFR.

> B7. NRO/RIRs not capable of holding contract with ICANN (105)

Comment 105 suggests that the NRO is not capable of contracting 
with ICANN.  This question is moot because the contract will be 
between the 5 RIRs and ICANN, not between the NRO and ICANN.

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> Clarification exists in comment 72 and 133, but question is whether:
> - Do 72 and 133 cover the issue?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be included in ICG text?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be part of the CRISP proposal?

If the CRISP proposal is edited, then the numbers community is 
likely to insist on an additional public comment period, so edits 
to the CRISP proposal should be avoided if possible.

Edits to part 0 of the combined ICG proposal are somewhat easier.

Proposed ICG action: See the individual points above.


Alan Barrett and Russ Housley


From apb at cequrux.com  Wed Sep 23 06:34:54 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:34:54 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] PTI Slide 2 action items
In-Reply-To: <20150923055232.GC1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
References: <20150923055232.GC1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Message-ID: <20150923063454.GD1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

[re-send with fewer typos]

Russ Housley and Alan Barrett were asked "to do the next level 
filtering for PTI related issues listed in the PTI slide deck, 
review comments received, and make recommendations for ICG course 
of action (http://icgsec.asia/1FTPuNB)” for those items on slide 
2.

Slide 2 contains the following text:

> CRISP / IANAPLAN - PTI
>
> B. (B. Carpenter-2, R. Dara-23, Google-31, Dyn-34, CONAC-50, 
> ISPCP-64, IAB-72, J. Panday- 89, IA-103, F. Hopkinson-105, CDT-107, 
> P. Nagaraj/G. Varma-113, NCSG-114, Access-116, ICANN Board-121, 
> Intel-122, K. McCarthy-128, DSCI-130, CRISP-133)
>
> B1. Clarify that IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN, not PTI
> B1a Affirmed by 72, 133
>
> B2. IETF and RIR MoUs/SLAs need to clarify that subcontracts are allowed
>
> B3. Details of subcontract(s) between ICANN and PTI for protocol 
> parameters and numbers need to be worked out during proposal phase
>
> B6. Performance reviews of IFO; participation of OCs in IFR, CSC
>
> B6a. Proposal should clarify that IFR applies only to names (34, 72),
> CSC applies only to names (2)
>
> B6b. Numbers and protocol communities do not plan to participate in 
> IFR or CSC (72, 133)
>
> B6d. Complying with IFR recommendations should be mandatory for PTI (80)
>
> B7. NRO/RIRs not capable of holding contract with ICANN (105)
>
> Clarification exists in comment 72 and 133, but question is whether:
> - Do 72 and 133 cover the issue?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be included in ICG text?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be part of the CRISP proposal?


Our comments are:

> B1. Clarify that IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN, not PTI
> B1a Affirmed by 72, 133

The proposal from the IANAPLAN and CRISP groups were clear that the 
IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN.  This has also been confirmed 
in a comment from the IAB (comment number 72), and in a draft SLA from 
the RIRs <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf>, 
and in question 8 of the ICG FAQ 
<https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-faq/>

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> B2. IETF and RIR MoUs/SLAs need to clarify that subcontracts are allowed

The existing MoU/SLA between the IETF and ICANN 
<https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-en> 
is silent about subcontracting, and therefore implicitly allows 
subcontracting.  The draft contract/SLA between the RIRs and ICANN 
<https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf> allows 
subcontracting with permission.  Question 8 of the ICG FAQ 
<https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-faq/> 
also says that subcontracting is allowed.

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> B3. Details of subcontract(s) between ICANN and PTI for protocol 
> parameters and numbers need to be worked out during proposal phase

This is an implementation issue.  Any contract between ICANN and PTI 
would need to satisfy the CWG-Stewardship requirements for the names 
functions, and satisfy the IETF and RIRs’ contracts with ICANN for the 
protocol parameters and numbers components.

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> B6. Performance reviews of IFO; participation of OCs in IFR, CSC
>
> B6a. Proposal should clarify that IFR applies only to names (34, 72),
> CSC applies only to names (2)

We agree that clarity is needed, and note that a similar issue exists 
with the terms “IFO” and “IANA Functions Operator” in the 
CWG-Stewardship proposal.

Proposed ICG action:
a: Ask CWG-Stewardship for confirmation that the terms “IFO” and IANA 
Functions Operator” in the names proposal apply only to the names part 
of the IANA functions;
b: ask CWG-Stewardship for confirmation that the CSC and IFR apply 
only to the names part of the IANA functions;
c: edit the FAQ and part 0 of the combined proposal to provide clarity.

> B6b. Numbers and protocol communities do not plan to participate in 
> IFR or CSC (72, 133)

The protocol parameters community has made it clear (see comment 72) 
that they do not intend to participate in committees related to names 
functions.  Alan Barrett thinks that the numbers community indicated 
that, if they participated in these processes at all, it would be only 
because the numbers community uses the .ARPA domain name, but he was 
unable to find a clear statement of that principle.

Proposed ICG action:
a: Ask CWG-Stewardship whether .ARPA is included in the CSC and IFR processes.
b: Ask CRISP whether the numbers community will participate in the CSC 
and IFR processes, and whether the answer depends on whether .ARPA 
is included or excluded.
c: Edit the FAQ and part 0 of the combined proposal to provide clarity.

> B6d. Complying with IFR recommendations should be mandatory for PTI (80)

Comment 80 (the english translation) says “We suggest the further 
clarification of whether the reviewing decisions or comments from IFR 
and Special IFR are mandatory to PTI, and that the manner in which to 
ensure that the reviewing comments from IFR and Special IFR can be 
implemented be made clear.”

Proposed ICG action: Ask CWG-Stewardship for clarification on whether 
PTI compliance is mandatory when decisions or recommendations are made 
by IFR or special IFR.

> B7. NRO/RIRs not capable of holding contract with ICANN (105)

Comment 105 suggests that the NRO is not capable of contracting with 
ICANN.  This question is moot because the contract will be between the 
5 RIRs and ICANN, not between the NRO and ICANN.

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> Clarification exists in comment 72 and 133, but question is whether:
> - Do 72 and 133 cover the issue?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be included in ICG text?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be part of the CRISP proposal?

If the CRISP proposal is edited, then the numbers community is likely 
to insist on an additional public comment period, so edits to the 
CRISP proposal should be avoided if possible.

Edits to part 0 of the combined ICG proposal are somewhat easier.

Proposed ICG action: See the individual points above.


Alan Barrett and Russ Housley


From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Wed Sep 23 07:34:36 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:34:36 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3
In-Reply-To: <13B7524F80C24613923ADC57D4F14E04@WUKPC>
References: <13B7524F80C24613923ADC57D4F14E04@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <0A0649E7-2F70-4181-862B-12242AEA6724@piuha.net>


> • limit explicitly the PTI board’s function and scope of powers to the operational oversight of IANA functions or limit the PTI remit
> • provide additional safeguards to ensure PTI remains accountable to the broader multistakeholder community.
> • the composition of the PTI board should ensure who bears ultimate responsibility for the IANA performance (ICANN board or PTI board): e.g. 1. subset of ICANN board members or 2. coming more from the community or 3. mix; caution against capture by governments or industry
> • criteria for board member selection to be established: e.g.  professional knowledge, geographical balance, community representation, conflict of interest, gender balance, able to grasp and attend to any public interest or human rights concern that the board might face, overall neutrality
> • PTI board selection process should be discussed including review in case of PTI separation

Abstracting a bit higher up, my read of the comments was that they fell in two broader categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected in the board and how. The former is the first item above, and the member selection, the process, and its future evolution is the rest. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what actual member selection process should be, but I believe the real question is whether additional details of the process can be provided.

In my view, both items have been discussed at length but the actual proposal has relatively little detail, some of which could be added. I do not know if the problem of boards blaming each other for operational problems (comment #81) has been considered, but that’s a useful question to ask from the CWG.

All in all, I would classify both categories of comments as something where we could ask (but not necessarily require) the CWG if they want to add detail. So, as WU wrote:

issue 1 (board powers):

From the content it seems to be clear that the PTI board’s scope is not on the operations itself rather than on the operations’ oversight. To the avoidance of doubt the “minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers” could be described in detail.
Suggestion: ask the CWG whether this could be provided. If yes, send us verbatim text. ICG question to follow.

issue 2-5 (board member selection):

Suggestion: ask the CWG for related discussion and sending verbatim text. ICG question to follow.

additional issue (regarding limitation of PTI’s remit):

The proposal should be clear that PTI should operationally take over 1:1 IANA’s present tasks and should be limited to this. PTI’s board obligations shall cover the operations oversight. We can ask CWG whether both is clearly expressed in the proposal and  if not and if they agree then they may provide verbatim text.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/0580cc09/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/0580cc09/attachment.sig>

From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Wed Sep 23 08:22:40 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 01:22:40 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] proposed text change with regards to IPR
In-Reply-To: <11f11f15cc004d70a15502a38cb59840@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <CC915295-BE60-4110-9409-C886D9F38FEC@piuha.net>
	<FEC0E447-EBF5-4EA3-A654-EAF48EF3822C@piuha.net>
	<11f11f15cc004d70a15502a38cb59840@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <6D752612-335A-44D7-AB60-A7755970B935@piuha.net>

Ok - thanks.

Jari

On 21 Sep 2015, at 03:12, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Jari ..
> Just a minor edit to the very last sentence to read:
> " These details will become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation."
> Instead of
> " These details become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation."
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 2:06 AM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] proposed text change with regards to IPR
> 
> Thanks for all the feedback.
> 
> I have an updated version of the proposal text re: IPR now in DropBox, file IANA-transition-proposal-IPR-changes-v2.doc and also in text form below.
> 
> --
> 
> The ICG identified earlier a potential compatibility issue regarding the IANA trademarks and the iana.org domain name. The numbers community expects that both are associated with the IANA function and not with a particular IANA Function Operator. The entity that is associated with the trademarks and domains holds them on behalf of the three operational communities and the current operators.
> 
> Although the protocol parameters proposal did not speak to this issue, in response to an ICG inquiry the protocol parameters community indicated that it had no objection and was willing to help contribute to the arrangement.
> 
> The names proposal contains text that refers to the trademark in Annex S. In response to an ICG inquiry about the text, the CWG indicated that the text is clearly defined as placeholder text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG. In effect, the names proposal did not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademarks (and it is completely silent as regards the domain name). Since then, the CWG has confirmed that its position is consistent with that of the other two communities in that it has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator. These community positions are also consistent with the ICANN board statement on the same topic.
> 
> As a result, the ICG considers the three proposals to be compatible. While the requirements in the transition plan are therefore clear, work remains to actually implement the requirements. Detailed implementation requirements for the entity holding the IPR will be agreed and specified, an appropriate entity will then be created or selected such that it can meet the detailed requirements. The ICG notes that the operational communities are coordinating these details, and the ICG expects this coordination to continue during the implementation phase to ensure that the requirements are met. Some of the questions that the ICG received during the public comment period of the proposal relate to the implementation details. These details become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation.
> 
> --
> 
> Comments again appreciated.
> 
> Jari
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/d57fd6ea/attachment.sig>

From keith at internetnz.net.nz  Wed Sep 23 10:35:44 2015
From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:35:44 +1200
Subject: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)
In-Reply-To: <2C104FCA-123F-40BF-8078-8378199FB63A@cooperw.in>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B395E2@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<2C104FCA-123F-40BF-8078-8378199FB63A@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <56028080.5070400@internetnz.net.nz>

Agree with the text including this suggested additional text.

Cheers

Keith

On 23/09/2015 11:17 a.m., Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Upon further reflection I would suggest one addition below.
>
>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
>> <mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>> Thanks all for a constructive and useful dialogue on Friday & Saturday.
>> In response to the action on me (item 3) on ccTLD comments, I suggest
>> the following wording for the note to the CWG:
>> We received**comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service
>> (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1
>> (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group
>> (FOIWG).
>> The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the
>> FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully**be amended to reflect
>> this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the
>> FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.”
>
> I would suggest adding an additional sentence at the end of the
> paragraph above:
>
> “Please let us know if you agree to this amendment.”
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>> The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be
>> achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and
>> including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the
>> non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from
>> 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC
>> Principles 2005).  This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment,
>> bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we
>> would therefore ask the CWG whether the proposal could be adapted
>> accordingly.
>> We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function
>> Review Teams (paragraph 1283).  This recommends that two ccNSO members
>> and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT.  While the
>> input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of
>> non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure
>> rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member.  In particular, the
>> commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an
>> important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed
>> to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather
>> than a requirement.  We would welcome the CWG’s thoughts on this
>> suggestion.
>> Keith Davidson and Wolf-Ulrich have both seen the proposed wording
>> (although I have made some hopefully uncontroversial mods since then,
>> so I’d welcome their confirmation that they are happy with the text).
>> Hope this helps
>> Martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>


From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Sep 23 10:36:32 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:36:32 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3
In-Reply-To: <F5C48260-EE47-4BA5-AEB2-6A40EB944C0A@cooperw.in>
References: <13B7524F80C24613923ADC57D4F14E04@WUKPC>
	<F5C48260-EE47-4BA5-AEB2-6A40EB944C0A@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <6FE3824FBB9D4EE99A0B40939D681046@WUKPC>

Thanks team colleagues and Alissa,

as to your question, there were comments explaining doubts – derived from the proposal - where the ultimate responsibility for operational issues may be (PTI board or ICANN board) and asking for clear allocation.

Drawn from the list discussion, I have formulated the two following questions to CWG (to be inserted in the total list of questions) :

6) The comments regarding PTI board fell in two broader categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected in the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what actual member selection process should be.



Para 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.” From the underlying legal expertise (Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers being with the PTI board. We’d like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. In this case we recommend adapting the related text accordingly.

To the avoidance of doubt we also recommend to provide a summarizing text on the “minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers”.



7) Some comments raise concern with regards to the risk that ICANN board and PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other board responsible. If the CWG agrees that the ultimate responsibility for the PTI performance should be undoubtedly clear then we would ask to provide us with related text.



8) Several comments requested for an explicit limitation of PTI’s and PTI board’s remit. To our understanding PTI should operationally take over 1:1 IANA’s present tasks and should be limited to this. PTI’s board obligations shall cover the operations oversight. We’d like to ask CWG whether this interpretation is correct and both is clearly expressed in the proposal. Otherwise we recommend adapting the related text accordingly.


The comments re PTI board selection process to my opinion still touch on implementation issues, and I don’t think a question for more detail in the current proposal may be too early. But I’m open to different advice.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Alissa Cooper 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:12 AM
To: WUKnoben 
Cc: ICG 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

Thanks. One question below.

  On Sep 22, 2015, at 3:02 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:

  All,

  here’s what the team has elaborated so far but we had not finally “approved”. So discussion remains open for all.
  I’ll try to send draft ICG questions tomorrow before the call.

  We note that the heading “B”, sub-heading B6, and item B6d, appear on both slides 2 and 3 of the slide deck "PTI related issues-v1.pdf”.  They are dealt with by another sub-team under slide 2, so this sub-team is focusing on “C”. This means that only #29, 31, 50, 51, 80, 81, 92, 95, 102, 103, 107 and 121 are relevant for our task.


  Specific statements with regards to the PTI board can be drawn from para 1111 to 1114 of the ICG proposal.

  Issues raised in the comments:
    1.. limit explicitly the PTI board’s function and scope of powers to the operational oversight of IANA functions or limit the PTI remit 
    2.. provide additional safeguards to ensure PTI remains accountable to the broader multistakeholder community. 
    3.. the composition of the PTI board should ensure who bears ultimate responsibility for the IANA performance (ICANN board or PTI board): e.g. 1. subset of ICANN board members or 2. coming more from the community or 3. mix; caution against capture by governments or industry 
I don’t fully understand this summary of the comments. The CWG proposal has a whole framework for establishing SLEs and reviewing IANA’s performance on a regular basis. Are the commenters questioning whether the PTI Board has a role related to the performance of the naming functions? Or something else?

Thanks,
Alissa

    4.. criteria for board member selection to be established: e.g.  professional knowledge, geographical balance, community representation, conflict of interest, gender balance, able to grasp and attend to any public interest or human rights concern that the board might face, overall neutrality 
    5.. PTI board selection process should be discussed including review in case of PTI separation
  Conclusion:
    a.. To 1.:
    From para 1112 of the proposal: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” This should read “...board of directors and who have...” since it’s related to the board rather than to the PTI as a whole (derived from Sidley, too).
    From the content it seems to be clear that the PTI board’s scope is not on the operations itself rather than on the operations’ oversight. To the avoidance of doubt the “minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers” could be described in detail.
    Suggestion: ask the CWG whether this could be provided. If yes, send us verbatim text. ICG question to follow.
    a.. To 2.:
    The “broader community” as well as the operational communities are represented in the CWG. It’s up to them to elaborate on the right level of accountability.
    Suggestion: no ICG action required
    a.. To 3.:
    The ultimate responsibility for the IANA performance should be undoubtedly clear.
    Suggestion: ask the CWG for related discussion and sending verbatim text. ICG question to follow.
    a.. To 4. and 5.:
    implementation topics. Perhaps the ICG should explicitly say so in section 0.
    Question here: should a framework for the related implementation be asked for , and to what extend? Otherwise no ICG action required.
    ICG question to follow.
    a.. Regarding limitation of PTI’s remit:
    The proposal should be clear that PTI should operationally take over 1:1 IANA’s present tasks and should be limited to this. PTI’s board obligations shall cover the operations oversight. We can ask CWG whether both is clearly expressed in the proposal and  if not and if they agree then they may provide verbatim text.
    ICG question to follow.
  Comments welcome!

  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich


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





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/a156c0a2/attachment.html>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Sep 23 10:54:53 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:54:53 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues
	slide 4-5
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C01A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/fe786f51/attachment.docx>

From paf at frobbit.se  Wed Sep 23 11:02:34 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 07:02:34 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues
 slide 4-5
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C01A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C01A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <6D3BC795-0FCF-4069-9C3B-1500552110EE@frobbit.se>

On 23 Sep 2015, at 6:54, Martin Boyle wrote:

> 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.

Can not this be shortened to just:

For this to work, all three operational communities will need to agree to establish some form of cooperation: if you agree to include this in your submission, please send us verbatim text to reflect an agreed amendment.


I.e. I do not care what process they use. They might even have agreements already.

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/ebcbfb74/attachment.sig>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Sep 23 11:05:52 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:05:52 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues
 slide 4-5
In-Reply-To: <6D3BC795-0FCF-4069-9C3B-1500552110EE@frobbit.se>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C01A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<6D3BC795-0FCF-4069-9C3B-1500552110EE@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C151@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

I'm fine with this, but would question whether we won't end with only part of an answer if we do not clearly request them to work together on this.  But I do not mind.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
Sent: 23 September 2015 12:03
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5

On 23 Sep 2015, at 6:54, Martin Boyle wrote:

> 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.

Can not this be shortened to just:

For this to work, all three operational communities will need to agree to establish some form of cooperation: if you agree to include this in your submission, please send us verbatim text to reflect an agreed amendment.


I.e. I do not care what process they use. They might even have agreements already.

   Patrik


From paf at frobbit.se  Wed Sep 23 11:13:17 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 07:13:17 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues
 slide 4-5
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C151@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C01A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<6D3BC795-0FCF-4069-9C3B-1500552110EE@frobbit.se>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C151@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <5B58C393-6817-44F3-8F6A-2F0632E06E81@frobbit.se>

I just try to avoid being prescriptive.

I trust you suggesting good words.

   Patrik

On 23 Sep 2015, at 7:05, Martin Boyle wrote:

> I'm fine with this, but would question whether we won't end with only part of an answer if we do not clearly request them to work together on this.  But I do not mind.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se]
> Sent: 23 September 2015 12:03
> To: Martin Boyle
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5
>
> On 23 Sep 2015, at 6:54, Martin Boyle wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Can not this be shortened to just:
>
> For this to work, all three operational communities will need to agree to establish some form of cooperation: if you agree to include this in your submission, please send us verbatim text to reflect an agreed amendment.
>
>
> I.e. I do not care what process they use. They might even have agreements already.
>
> Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/7b50f2bf/attachment.sig>

From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Wed Sep 23 11:14:43 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:14:43 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues
 slide 4-5
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C151@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C01A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<6D3BC795-0FCF-4069-9C3B-1500552110EE@frobbit.se>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C151@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <560289A3.9090501@ripe.net>

In my opinion all that is needed is for the OCs to commit to coordinate
and to cooperate as necessary when changing operator. The process in
fact cannot be foreseen because the number of possible scenarios is not
bounded. So I am with Patrik "agree to establish" and  coordination is
all that is required.

Daniel


On 23.09.15 13:05 , Martin Boyle wrote:
> I'm fine with this, but would question whether we won't end with only part of an answer if we do not clearly request them to work together on this.  But I do not mind.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
> Sent: 23 September 2015 12:03
> To: Martin Boyle
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5
> 
> On 23 Sep 2015, at 6:54, Martin Boyle wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Can not this be shortened to just:
> 
> For this to work, all three operational communities will need to agree to establish some form of cooperation: if you agree to include this in your submission, please send us verbatim text to reflect an agreed amendment.
> 
> 
> I.e. I do not care what process they use. They might even have agreements already.
> 
>    Patrik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 


From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Sep 23 11:18:47 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:18:47 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues
 slide 4-5
In-Reply-To: <560289A3.9090501@ripe.net>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C01A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<6D3BC795-0FCF-4069-9C3B-1500552110EE@frobbit.se>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C151@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<560289A3.9090501@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C1A1@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

I'm not wedded to a solution:  this sounds fine as three agreements will give us the right to write in section 0.



-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
Sent: 23 September 2015 12:15
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5

In my opinion all that is needed is for the OCs to commit to coordinate and to cooperate as necessary when changing operator. The process in fact cannot be foreseen because the number of possible scenarios is not bounded. So I am with Patrik "agree to establish" and  coordination is all that is required.

Daniel


On 23.09.15 13:05 , Martin Boyle wrote:
> I'm fine with this, but would question whether we won't end with only part of an answer if we do not clearly request them to work together on this.  But I do not mind.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se]
> Sent: 23 September 2015 12:03
> To: Martin Boyle
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related 
> issues slide 4-5
> 
> On 23 Sep 2015, at 6:54, Martin Boyle wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Can not this be shortened to just:
> 
> For this to work, all three operational communities will need to agree to establish some form of cooperation: if you agree to include this in your submission, please send us verbatim text to reflect an agreed amendment.
> 
> 
> I.e. I do not care what process they use. They might even have agreements already.
> 
>    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 housley at vigilsec.com  Wed Sep 23 11:58:58 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 07:58:58 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues
	slide 4-5
In-Reply-To: <560289A3.9090501@ripe.net>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C01A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<6D3BC795-0FCF-4069-9C3B-1500552110EE@frobbit.se>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3C151@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<560289A3.9090501@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <5DF8709E-331F-4DEF-B7B6-3F5A981D1547@vigilsec.com>

+1

On Sep 23, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> In my opinion all that is needed is for the OCs to commit to coordinate
> and to cooperate as necessary when changing operator. The process in
> fact cannot be foreseen because the number of possible scenarios is not
> bounded. So I am with Patrik "agree to establish" and  coordination is
> all that is required.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> On 23.09.15 13:05 , Martin Boyle wrote:
>> I'm fine with this, but would question whether we won't end with only part of an answer if we do not clearly request them to work together on this.  But I do not mind.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
>> Sent: 23 September 2015 12:03
>> To: Martin Boyle
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5
>> 
>> On 23 Sep 2015, at 6:54, Martin Boyle wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Can not this be shortened to just:
>> 
>> For this to work, all three operational communities will need to agree to establish some form of cooperation: if you agree to include this in your submission, please send us verbatim text to reflect an agreed amendment.
>> 
>> 
>> I.e. I do not care what process they use. They might even have agreements already.
>> 
>>   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 wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Sep 23 12:51:02 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:51:02 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3
In-Reply-To: <6FE3824FBB9D4EE99A0B40939D681046@WUKPC>
References: <13B7524F80C24613923ADC57D4F14E04@WUKPC><F5C48260-EE47-4BA5-AEB2-6A40EB944C0A@cooperw.in>
	<6FE3824FBB9D4EE99A0B40939D681046@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <B0D8E31ADF804F15B05A9587342D8C0A@WUKPC>

All,
following the ICG call today, I have formulated two questions to CWG (to be inserted in the total list of questions) for further amendments:

6) The comments regarding PTI board fall in two broader categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected in the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what actual member selection process should be. We note that the board composition and selection procedure have been extensively discussed within the CWG and should be elaborated in detail during the implementation planning.



Para 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.” However, from the underlying legal expertise (Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers being with the PTI board. We’d like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. In this case we recommend adapting the related text accordingly.



7) Some comments raise concern with regards to the risk that ICANN board and PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other board responsible. The ICG deems a clarification being necessary on this point in the following way: If the CWG agrees that the ultimate responsibility for the PTI performance should be undoubtedly clear then we would ask to provide us with related text to the allocation of these responsibilities.




Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/54e15e95/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 23 13:06:55 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 06:06:55 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] document compiling OC questions
In-Reply-To: <D59B2DE8-9001-440C-A11D-518C9048EC37@tislabs.com>
References: <CF50CE90-B21B-4366-A4FF-4A51A52FB614@cooperw.in>
	<D59B2DE8-9001-440C-A11D-518C9048EC37@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <F8EAD0BB-ABCD-4B9D-B5FB-1C5FDC689041@cooperw.in>

The attached document reflects these changes and has the question to all of the OCs about coordination in the event of change of operator. Everyone please have a look. I will keep adding the questions to this document as we finalize them.

Also in Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndriu6fj9o0c3sb/questions-for-OCs-v1.docx?dl=0

Thanks,
Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: questions-for-OCs-v1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 150703 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/9d3172a3/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 10:09 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alissa, thanks for putting this together - it’s very helpful.
> 
> I think that we agreed at our last f2f meeting that it would be best to provide suggested text changes rather than editing the word documents so I’m going to suggest some changes a portion of the first RZM question:
> 
> Currently reads:  … requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150, sections 2 and 3 of Part 1 of the …
> 
> Suggested change:  … requirements expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the  … 
> 
> 
> RussM
> 
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> I thought having the OC questions in one place would make it easier to live-edit on the call if necessary: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hx06iasdvh3kd4/questions-for-OCs-v0.docx?dl=0 (also attached)
>> 
>> I’ll try to update this before the call if changes come in but the call is at 4:00 in my time zone so no guarantees.
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>> <questions-for-OCs-v0.docx>_______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 


From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Sep 23 13:12:31 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:12:31 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 23: Action items, attendance list,
	chat transcript
Message-ID: <00c001d0f601$84312d80$8c938880$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the action items (below), attendance list (below) and chat
transcript (attached) for ICG Call 23.  Please let me know if you note any
discrepancies.

 

Action items:

 

1. Barrett to provide text for OC questions from slide 2 analysis by Sept 23
at 20:00 UTC.

 

2. Knoben to provide text for CWG questions from slide 3 analysis by Sept 23
at 20:00 UTC.

 

3. Boyle to send his analysis about slide 5 points 2 – 6 to the internal-cg
mailing list by Sept 23 at 16:30 UTC.

 

4. (Cooper) to add text to part 0 section about PTI that points to places in
the rest of the proposal where escalation is discussed by each of the
communities and the big picture for how escalation works is described.

 

5. ICG Chairs to request specific authors for summary document sections
related to today's discussions.

 

 

Attendance list:

 

Participants:

Alan Barrett (NRO)

Alissa Cooper (IETF)

Demi Getschko (ISOC)

Hartmut Glaser (ASO)

James Bladel (GNSO)

Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC)

Jari Arkko (IETF)

Keith Davidson (ccNSO)

Lynn St Amour (IAB) 

Manal Ismail (GAC)

Martin Boyle (ccNSO)

Michael Niebel (GAC)

Milton Mueller (GNSO)

Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC)

Narelle Clark (ISOC)

Patrik Fältström (SSAC)

Russ Mundy (SSAC)

Russ Housley (IAB)

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO)

 

Apologies:

Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC)

Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison)

Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC)

Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) 

Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS)

Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)

Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries)

Kuo-Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison)

Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC)

Mary Uduma (ccNSO)

Paul Wilson (NRO)

Thomas Schneider (GAC)

Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO)

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/51c2e841/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Call 23 chat transcript.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 358613 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/51c2e841/attachment.pdf>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 23 13:20:18 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 06:20:18 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3
In-Reply-To: <B0D8E31ADF804F15B05A9587342D8C0A@WUKPC>
References: <13B7524F80C24613923ADC57D4F14E04@WUKPC>
	<F5C48260-EE47-4BA5-AEB2-6A40EB944C0A@cooperw.in>
	<6FE3824FBB9D4EE99A0B40939D681046@WUKPC>
	<B0D8E31ADF804F15B05A9587342D8C0A@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <EEA2A67C-C7BF-4149-908F-D45C64D2869A@cooperw.in>

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

> On Sep 23, 2015, at 5:51 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> All,
> following the ICG call today, I have formulated two questions to CWG (to be inserted in the total list of questions) for further amendments:
>  
> 6) The comments regarding PTI board fall in two broader categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected in the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what actual member selection process should be. We note that the board composition and selection procedure have been extensively discussed within the CWG and should be elaborated in detail during the implementation planning.
>  
> Para 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.” However, from the underlying legal expertise (Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers being with the PTI board. We’d like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. In this case we recommend adapting the related text accordingly.

I would suggest being slightly more explicit about the change we are proposing. I would suggest the following in lieu of the paragraph above:

Para 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 (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.”

>  
> 7) Some comments raise concern with regards to the risk that ICANN board and PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other board responsible. The ICG deems a clarification being necessary on this point in the following way: If the CWG agrees that the ultimate responsibility for the PTI performance should be undoubtedly clear then we would ask to provide us with related text to the allocation of these responsibilities.

I’m a bit confused by this question. It’s hard to believe the CWG would not want the responsibilities to be clearly allocated between the two boards. Furthermore, paragraph 1113 seems fairly explicit on this point: it is the role of the PTI board to ensure that PTI fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions contract with ICANN. Why doesn’t that answer the question? And if it doesn't, are we asking the CWG to amend their proposal? Or are we just asking the question so that we can understand the proposal better (as with the RZM question)? 

Thanks,
Alissa

>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/74d72271/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 23 13:32:18 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 06:32:18 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] document compiling OC questions
In-Reply-To: <F8EAD0BB-ABCD-4B9D-B5FB-1C5FDC689041@cooperw.in>
References: <CF50CE90-B21B-4366-A4FF-4A51A52FB614@cooperw.in>
	<D59B2DE8-9001-440C-A11D-518C9048EC37@tislabs.com>
	<F8EAD0BB-ABCD-4B9D-B5FB-1C5FDC689041@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <DACF59E5-8EE3-4D9F-BA92-242A9311D497@cooperw.in>

I made one edit to include the disclaimer that Daniel had suggested and that we discussed at the F2F about setting expectations concerning further public comment:

"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."


Alissa


> On Sep 23, 2015, at 6:06 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> The attached document reflects these changes and has the question to all of the OCs about coordination in the event of change of operator. Everyone please have a look. I will keep adding the questions to this document as we finalize them.
> 
> Also in Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndriu6fj9o0c3sb/questions-for-OCs-v1.docx?dl=0
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> <questions-for-OCs-v1.docx>
>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 10:09 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Alissa, thanks for putting this together - it’s very helpful.
>> 
>> I think that we agreed at our last f2f meeting that it would be best to provide suggested text changes rather than editing the word documents so I’m going to suggest some changes a portion of the first RZM question:
>> 
>> Currently reads:  … requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150, sections 2 and 3 of Part 1 of the …
>> 
>> Suggested change:  … requirements expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the  … 
>> 
>> 
>> RussM
>> 
>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>>> I thought having the OC questions in one place would make it easier to live-edit on the call if necessary: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hx06iasdvh3kd4/questions-for-OCs-v0.docx?dl=0 (also attached)
>>> 
>>> I’ll try to update this before the call if changes come in but the call is at 4:00 in my time zone so no guarantees.
>>> 
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> <questions-for-OCs-v0.docx>_______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/a148bd54/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: questions-for-OCs-v1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 152753 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/a148bd54/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/a148bd54/attachment-0001.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Sep 23 15:02:05 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 17:02:05 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3
In-Reply-To: <EEA2A67C-C7BF-4149-908F-D45C64D2869A@cooperw.in>
References: <13B7524F80C24613923ADC57D4F14E04@WUKPC>
	<F5C48260-EE47-4BA5-AEB2-6A40EB944C0A@cooperw.in>
	<6FE3824FBB9D4EE99A0B40939D681046@WUKPC>
	<B0D8E31ADF804F15B05A9587342D8C0A@WUKPC>
	<EEA2A67C-C7BF-4149-908F-D45C64D2869A@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <FCDD12839FA74F49A346B75D0181A19D@WUKPC>

Thanks Alissa!

I agree to your amendments re the first question.

With respect to the second question you’re right that it isn’t the best one. The concern in the comments over the last responsibility for carrying out the IANA functions is raised more in context with the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and “independent” members). So a better question would be who takes this last responsibility: the ICANN board through the contract with PTI or the PTI board. To my understanding this is not explicitly covered by para 1113. But if others are convinced it is I’m not adhered to.

Here’s an attempt to re-formulate the question:
7) Some comments raise concern in context with the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and “independent” members) that ICANN board and PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other board responsible. Para 1113 of the proposal indicates the PTI’s board operational oversight responsibilities “under the IANA functions contract with ICANN”. We would prefer a clear statement on where the last responsibility for carrying out the IANA functions is allocated.

If you or other native speakers could help with the formulation, I’d appreciate.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Alissa Cooper 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:20 PM
To: WUKnoben 
Cc: ICG 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3

Hi Wolf-Ulrich, 

  On Sep 23, 2015, at 5:51 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:

  All,
  following the ICG call today, I have formulated two questions to CWG (to be inserted in the total list of questions) for further amendments:

  6) The comments regarding PTI board fall in two broader categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected in the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what actual member selection process should be. We note that the board composition and selection procedure have been extensively discussed within the CWG and should be elaborated in detail during the implementation planning.


  Para 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.” However, from the underlying legal expertise (Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers being with the PTI board. We’d like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. In this case we recommend adapting the related text accordingly.

I would suggest being slightly more explicit about the change we are proposing. I would suggest the following in lieu of the paragraph above:

Para 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 (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.”




  7) Some comments raise concern with regards to the risk that ICANN board and PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other board responsible. The ICG deems a clarification being necessary on this point in the following way: If the CWG agrees that the ultimate responsibility for the PTI performance should be undoubtedly clear then we would ask to provide us with related text to the allocation of these responsibilities.

I’m a bit confused by this question. It’s hard to believe the CWG would not want the responsibilities to be clearly allocated between the two boards. Furthermore, paragraph 1113 seems fairly explicit on this point: it is the role of the PTI board to ensure that PTI fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions contract with ICANN. Why doesn’t that answer the question? And if it doesn't, are we asking the CWG to amend their proposal? Or are we just asking the question so that we can understand the proposal better (as with the RZM question)? 

Thanks,
Alissa





  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/e37d9820/attachment.html>

From apb at cequrux.com  Wed Sep 23 15:11:47 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:11:47 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] PTI Slide 2 action items
In-Reply-To: <20150923063454.GD1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
References: <20150923055232.GC1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
	<20150923063454.GD1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Message-ID: <20150923151147.GM1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

Some changes arising from today's call:

For B1 & B2: Instead of no ICG action, say that clarifications shouold
be made in Part 0.

For B6d, in the question to CWG, change "whether PTI compliance is mandatory"
to "whether ICANN and PTI compliance is mandatory".

I also added proposed text for questions to operating communities.

New version below.

Alan Barrett

----------

Russ Housley and Alan Barrett were asked "to do the next level 
filtering for PTI related issues listed in the PTI slide deck, review 
comments received, and make recommendations for ICG course of action 
(http://icgsec.asia/1FTPuNB)” for those items on slide 2.

Slide 2 contains the following text:

> CRISP / IANAPLAN - PTI
>
> B. (B. Carpenter-2, R. Dara-23, Google-31, Dyn-34, CONAC-50, 
> ISPCP-64, IAB-72, J. Panday- 89, IA-103, F. Hopkinson-105, CDT-107, 
> P. Nagaraj/G. Varma-113, NCSG-114, Access-116, ICANN Board-121, 
> Intel-122, K. McCarthy-128, DSCI-130, CRISP-133)
>
> B1. Clarify that IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN, not PTI
> B1a Affirmed by 72, 133
>
> B2. IETF and RIR MoUs/SLAs need to clarify that subcontracts are allowed
>
> B3. Details of subcontract(s) between ICANN and PTI for protocol 
> parameters and numbers need to be worked out during proposal phase
>
> B6. Performance reviews of IFO; participation of OCs in IFR, CSC
>
> B6a. Proposal should clarify that IFR applies only to names (34, 72),
> CSC applies only to names (2)
>
> B6b. Numbers and protocol communities do not plan to participate in 
> IFR or CSC (72, 133)
>
> B6d. Complying with IFR recommendations should be mandatory for PTI (80)
>
> B7. NRO/RIRs not capable of holding contract with ICANN (105)
>
> Clarification exists in comment 72 and 133, but question is whether:
> - Do 72 and 133 cover the issue?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be included in ICG text?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be part of the CRISP proposal?


Our comments are:

> B1. Clarify that IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN, not PTI
> B1a Affirmed by 72, 133

The proposal from the IANAPLAN and CRISP groups were clear that the 
IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN.  This has also been confirmed 
in a comment from the IAB (comment number 72), and in a draft SLA from 
the RIRs <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf>, 
and in question 8 of the ICG FAQ <https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-faq/>

Proposed ICG action: Edit Part 0 of the combined proposal to 
provide clarity.  (The FAQ is already clear on this point.)

> B2. IETF and RIR MoUs/SLAs need to clarify that subcontracts are allowed

The existing MoU/SLA between the IETF and ICANN <https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-en> 
is silent about subcontracting, and therefore implicitly allows 
subcontracting.  The draft contract/SLA between the RIRs and ICANN 
<https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf> allows 
subcontracting with permission.  Question 8 of the ICG FAQ <https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-faq/> 
also says that subcontracting is allowed.

Proposed ICG action: Edit Part 0 of the combined proposal to 
provide clarity.  (The FAQ is already clear on this point.)

> B3. Details of subcontract(s) between ICANN and PTI for protocol 
> parameters and numbers need to be worked out during proposal phase

This is an implementation issue.  Any contract between ICANN and PTI 
would need to satisfy the CWG-Stewardship requirements for the names 
functions, and satisfy the IETF and RIRs’ contracts with ICANN for the 
protocol parameters and numbers components.

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> B6. Performance reviews of IFO; participation of OCs in IFR, CSC
>
> B6a. Proposal should clarify that IFR applies only to names (34, 72),
> CSC applies only to names (2)

We agree that clarity is needed, and note that a similar issue exists 
with the terms “IFO” and “IANA Functions Operator” in the 
CWG-Stewardship proposal.

Proposed ICG action:
a: Ask CWG-Stewardship for confirmation that the terms “IFO” and IANA 
Functions Operator” in the names proposal apply only to the names part 
of the IANA functions;
b: ask CWG-Stewardship for confirmation that the CSC and IFR apply 
only to the names part of the IANA functions;
c: edit the FAQ and Part 0 of the combined proposal to provide clarity.

Proposed questions to CWG-Stewardship:

Q: 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.

Q: Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing 
Committee (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA 
functions.

Q: 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.

> B6b. Numbers and protocol communities do not plan to participate in 
> IFR or CSC (72, 133)

The protocol parameters community has made it clear (see comment 72) 
that they do not intend to participate in committees related to names 
functions.  Alan Barrett thinks that the numbers community indicated 
that, if they participated in these processes at all, it would be only 
because the numbers community uses the .ARPA domain name, but he was 
unable to find a clear statement of that principle.

Proposed ICG action:
a: Ask CWG-Stewardship whether .ARPA is included in the CSC and IFR processes.
b: Ask CRISP whether the numbers community will participate in the CSC 
and IFR processes, and whether the answer depends on whether .ARPA is 
included or excluded.
c: Edit the FAQ and Part 0 of the combined proposal to provide clarity.

Proposed question to CWG-Stewardship:

Q: 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.

Proposed question to CRISP Team:

Q: 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?

> B6d. Complying with IFR recommendations should be mandatory for PTI (80)

Comment 80 (the english translation) says “We suggest the further 
clarification of whether the reviewing decisions or comments from IFR 
and Special IFR are mandatory to PTI, and that the manner in which to 
ensure that the reviewing comments from IFR and Special IFR can be 
implemented be made clear.”

Proposed ICG action: Ask CWG-Stewardship for clarification on 
whether ICANN and PTI compliance is mandatory when decisions or 
recommendations are made by IFR or special IFR.

Proposed question to CWG-Stewardship:

Q: 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.

> B7. NRO/RIRs not capable of holding contract with ICANN (105)

Comment 105 suggests that the NRO is not capable of contracting with 
ICANN.  This question is moot because the contract will be between the 
5 RIRs and ICANN, not between the NRO and ICANN.

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> Clarification exists in comment 72 and 133, but question is whether:
> - Do 72 and 133 cover the issue?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be included in ICG text?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be part of the CRISP proposal?

If the CRISP proposal is edited, then the numbers community is likely 
to insist on an additional public comment period, so edits to the 
CRISP proposal should be avoided if possible.

Edits to Part 0 of the combined ICG proposal are somewhat easier.

Proposed ICG action: See the individual points above.
--------


From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Sep 23 15:57:27 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:57:27 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] PTI related issues slide 5
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3CA19@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/7d013b4b/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 23 16:03:54 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:03:54 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] PTI Slide 2 action items
In-Reply-To: <20150923151147.GM1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
References: <20150923055232.GC1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
	<20150923063454.GD1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
	<20150923151147.GM1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Message-ID: <4E801320-75C0-4798-BB9B-5CF325C12ED9@cooperw.in>

Thanks Alan. I have a question and comment about these proposed questions to the CWG:

> Proposed questions to CWG-Stewardship:
> 
> Q: 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.
> 
> Q: Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA functions.
> 
> Q: 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.
> 
> Q: 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.

> Q: 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.

Do we expect the answers to any of the above questions to result in amendments to the text in Part 1? Or are we simply asking for clarification such that we might reflect that clarity appropriately in Part 0? If it’s the former, I think we need to ask the CWG to provide amended text. My personal view is that it is the former for the last two questions only.

Alissa




From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 23 16:17:37 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:17:37 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3
In-Reply-To: <FCDD12839FA74F49A346B75D0181A19D@WUKPC>
References: <13B7524F80C24613923ADC57D4F14E04@WUKPC>
	<F5C48260-EE47-4BA5-AEB2-6A40EB944C0A@cooperw.in>
	<6FE3824FBB9D4EE99A0B40939D681046@WUKPC>
	<B0D8E31ADF804F15B05A9587342D8C0A@WUKPC>
	<EEA2A67C-C7BF-4149-908F-D45C64D2869A@cooperw.in>
	<FCDD12839FA74F49A346B75D0181A19D@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <E9F35803-24CA-4D32-9628-F61CD9CDD8E3@cooperw.in>

On Sep 23, 2015, at 8:02 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Alissa!
>  
> I agree to your amendments re the first question.
>  
> With respect to the second question you’re right that it isn’t the best one. The concern in the comments over the last responsibility for carrying out the IANA functions is raised more in context with the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and “independent” members). So a better question would be who takes this last responsibility: the ICANN board through the contract with PTI or the PTI board. To my understanding this is not explicitly covered by para 1113. But if others are convinced it is I’m not adhered to.
>  
> Here’s an attempt to re-formulate the question:
> 7) Some comments raise concern in context with the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and “independent” members) that ICANN board and PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other board responsible. Para 1113 of the proposal indicates the PTI’s board operational oversight responsibilities “under the IANA functions contract with ICANN”. We would prefer a clear statement on where the last responsibility for carrying out the IANA functions is allocated.
>  
> If you or other native speakers could help with the formulation, I’d appreciate.


Ok, I see the direction of this now. Here is what I would suggest:

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. Para 1113 of the proposal 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.

Alissa

> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> From: Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:20 PM
> To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Cc: ICG <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3
>  
> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
>  
>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 5:51 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>> wrote:
>>  
>> All,
>> following the ICG call today, I have formulated two questions to CWG (to be inserted in the total list of questions) for further amendments:
>>  
>> 6) The comments regarding PTI board fall in two broader categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected in the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what actual member selection process should be. We note that the board composition and selection procedure have been extensively discussed within the CWG and should be elaborated in detail during the implementation planning.
>>  
>> Para 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.” However, from the underlying legal expertise (Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers being with the PTI board. We’d like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. In this case we recommend adapting the related text accordingly.
>  
> I would suggest being slightly more explicit about the change we are proposing. I would suggest the following in lieu of the paragraph above:
>  
> Para 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 (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.”
> 
>>  
>> 7) Some comments raise concern with regards to the risk that ICANN board and PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other board responsible. The ICG deems a clarification being necessary on this point in the following way: If the CWG agrees that the ultimate responsibility for the PTI performance should be undoubtedly clear then we would ask to provide us with related text to the allocation of these responsibilities.
>  
> I’m a bit confused by this question. It’s hard to believe the CWG would not want the responsibilities to be clearly allocated between the two boards. Furthermore, paragraph 1113 seems fairly explicit on this point: it is the role of the PTI board to ensure that PTI fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions contract with ICANN. Why doesn’t that answer the question? And if it doesn't, are we asking the CWG to amend their proposal? Or are we just asking  the question so that we can understand the proposal better (as with the RZM question)?
>  
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/af61a4bb/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Sep 23 16:49:57 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:49:57 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum
In-Reply-To: <3A8CD7A5-3C38-4218-815D-1CF3AA42CB64@Internet-Matters.com>
References: <01b101d0f4b0$cc75d480$65617d80$@icgsec.asia>	<56015342.6020008@ripe.net>
	<3A8CD7A5-3C38-4218-815D-1CF3AA42CB64@Internet-Matters.com>
Message-ID: <018401d0f61f$e2acf830$a806e890$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

The comment has been forwarded to the CCWG-Accountability Secretariat as
follows:

---
Dear CCWG-Accountability Secretariat:

After consulting with ICG, we hereby want to give you a notification about
the following comment received in the ICG forum.

http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-September/000005.ht
ml

Best Regards,

Jennifer Chung
_________________
ICG Secretariat
---

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn
St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:35 PM
To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG forum

+1

Lynn

On Sep 22, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
wrote:

> I support forwarding this to CCWG quickly and without comment.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 21.09.15 23:02 , Jennifer Chung wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please find the comment received on the ICG forum, details below:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sunday 20 Sept: Richard Hill - "Process Concerns" - 
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-September/00
>> 0005.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The comment requests that the ICG forward the comment to 
>> CCWG-Accountability.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 jjs at dyalog.net  Wed Sep 23 16:51:18 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:51:18 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related
	issues	slide 4-5
In-Reply-To: <5DF8709E-331F-4DEF-B7B6-3F5A981D1547@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <30860220.236.1443027073512.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

It's fine with me too, in particular when considering the point made by Daniel, +1.
Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com>
À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 23 Septembre 2015 13:58:58
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues	slide 4-5

+1

On Sep 23, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> In my opinion all that is needed is for the OCs to commit to coordinate
> and to cooperate as necessary when changing operator. The process in
> fact cannot be foreseen because the number of possible scenarios is not
> bounded. So I am with Patrik "agree to establish" and  coordination is
> all that is required.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> On 23.09.15 13:05 , Martin Boyle wrote:
>> I'm fine with this, but would question whether we won't end with only part of an answer if we do not clearly request them to work together on this.  But I do not mind.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
>> Sent: 23 September 2015 12:03
>> To: Martin Boyle
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5
>> 
>> On 23 Sep 2015, at 6:54, Martin Boyle wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Can not this be shortened to just:
>> 
>> For this to work, all three operational communities will need to agree to establish some form of cooperation: if you agree to include this in your submission, please send us verbatim text to reflect an agreed amendment.
>> 
>> 
>> I.e. I do not care what process they use. They might even have agreements already.
>> 
>>   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 jjs at dyalog.net  Wed Sep 23 16:57:58 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:57:58 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)
In-Reply-To: <2C104FCA-123F-40BF-8078-8378199FB63A@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <8472830.283.1443027474781.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

I agree, including with Alissa's 2 proposed amendments.
Jean-Jacques.






----- Mail original -----
De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
À: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 23 Septembre 2015 01:17:35
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] ccTLD Points A & C / slide 22 (action point 3)



Upon further reflection I would suggest one addition below. 




On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Martin Boyle < Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk > wrote: 



Dear all, 

Thanks all for a constructive and useful dialogue on Friday & Saturday. 

In response to the action on me (item 3) on ccTLD comments, I suggest the following wording for the note to the CWG: 

We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG). 

The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.” 


I would suggest adding an additional sentence at the end of the paragraph above: 


“Please let us know if you agree to this amendment.” 


Thanks, 
Alissa 







The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005). This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether the proposal could be adapted accordingly. 

We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283). This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT. While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member. In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement. We would welcome the CWG’s thoughts on this suggestion. 

Keith Davidson and Wolf-Ulrich have both seen the proposed wording (although I have made some hopefully uncontroversial mods since then, so I’d welcome their confirmation that they are happy with the text). 

Hope this helps 


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 joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Wed Sep 23 17:10:20 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:10:20 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg]
 =?utf-8?q?action_item_2_sub-team_3=3A_PTI_related_i?=
 =?utf-8?q?ssues_slide_4-5?=
Message-ID: <20150923170300.830E11C15A5@smtp.notifymdm.com>

Shall we try to link it to existing cooperation?  The three communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to assure the smooth running of the DNS and the safety and security of the internet.  It will be important for the communities to continue this cooperation and develop any cooperation mechanisms needed when needed. Something along those lines...

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

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

From: Russ Housley [housley at vigilsec.com]
Received: Wednesday, 23 Sep 2015, 8:00AM
To: Daniel Karrenberg [daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net]
CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5

+1

On Sep 23, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> In my opinion all that is needed is for the OCs to commit to coordinate
> and to cooperate as necessary when changing operator. The process in
> fact cannot be foreseen because the number of possible scenarios is not
> bounded. So I am with Patrik "agree to establish" and  coordination is
> all that is required.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> On 23.09.15 13:05 , Martin Boyle wrote:
>> I'm fine with this, but would question whether we won't end with only part of an answer if we do not clearly request them to work together on this.  But I do not mind.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
>> Sent: 23 September 2015 12:03
>> To: Martin Boyle
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5
>> 
>> On 23 Sep 2015, at 6:54, Martin Boyle wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Can not this be shortened to just:
>> 
>> For this to work, all three operational communities will need to agree to establish some form of cooperation: if you agree to include this in your submission, please send us verbatim text to reflect an agreed amendment.
>> 
>> 
>> I.e. I do not care what process they use. They might even have agreements already.
>> 
>>   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 mundy at tislabs.com  Wed Sep 23 18:23:22 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:23:22 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] document compiling OC questions
In-Reply-To: <DACF59E5-8EE3-4D9F-BA92-242A9311D497@cooperw.in>
References: <CF50CE90-B21B-4366-A4FF-4A51A52FB614@cooperw.in>
	<D59B2DE8-9001-440C-A11D-518C9048EC37@tislabs.com>
	<F8EAD0BB-ABCD-4B9D-B5FB-1C5FDC689041@cooperw.in>
	<DACF59E5-8EE3-4D9F-BA92-242A9311D497@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <3F617EAA-2B41-4B2B-AE41-AC63947C3270@tislabs.com>

Alissa,

Thanks for incorporating the changes - I agree that adding the Daniel disclaimer is a good addition.  I think that I’ll have a little time later today to look at the rest of them later today but doubt that I’ll see other things.

Russ

On Sep 23, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> I made one edit to include the disclaimer that Daniel had suggested and that we discussed at the F2F about setting expectations concerning further public comment:
> 
> "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."
> 
> 
> Alissa
> 
> <questions-for-OCs-v1.docx>
> 
>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 6:06 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>> The attached document reflects these changes and has the question to all of the OCs about coordination in the event of change of operator. Everyone please have a look. I will keep adding the questions to this document as we finalize them.
>> 
>> Also in Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndriu6fj9o0c3sb/questions-for-OCs-v1.docx?dl=0
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>> <questions-for-OCs-v1.docx>
>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 10:09 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Alissa, thanks for putting this together - it’s very helpful.
>>> 
>>> I think that we agreed at our last f2f meeting that it would be best to provide suggested text changes rather than editing the word documents so I’m going to suggest some changes a portion of the first RZM question:
>>> 
>>> Currently reads:  … requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150, sections 2 and 3 of Part 1 of the …
>>> 
>>> Suggested change:  … requirements expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the  … 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> RussM
>>> 
>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I thought having the OC questions in one place would make it easier to live-edit on the call if necessary: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hx06iasdvh3kd4/questions-for-OCs-v0.docx?dl=0 (also attached)
>>>> 
>>>> I’ll try to update this before the call if changes come in but the call is at 4:00 in my time zone so no guarantees.
>>>> 
>>>> Alissa
>>>> 
>>>> <questions-for-OCs-v0.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/a92f8068/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Sep 23 18:51:03 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:51:03 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3
In-Reply-To: <E9F35803-24CA-4D32-9628-F61CD9CDD8E3@cooperw.in>
References: <13B7524F80C24613923ADC57D4F14E04@WUKPC>
	<F5C48260-EE47-4BA5-AEB2-6A40EB944C0A@cooperw.in>
	<6FE3824FBB9D4EE99A0B40939D681046@WUKPC>
	<B0D8E31ADF804F15B05A9587342D8C0A@WUKPC>
	<EEA2A67C-C7BF-4149-908F-D45C64D2869A@cooperw.in>
	<FCDD12839FA74F49A346B75D0181A19D@WUKPC>
	<E9F35803-24CA-4D32-9628-F61CD9CDD8E3@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <E7B19E701BAE4DE1A7F31BE167F0D6D4@WUKPC>

That’s it, thanks!

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Alissa Cooper 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 6:17 PM
To: WUKnoben 
Cc: ICG 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3

On Sep 23, 2015, at 8:02 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:



  Thanks Alissa!

  I agree to your amendments re the first question.

  With respect to the second question you’re right that it isn’t the best one. The concern in the comments over the last responsibility for carrying out the IANA functions is raised more in context with the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and “independent” members). So a better question would be who takes this last responsibility: the ICANN board through the contract with PTI or the PTI board. To my understanding this is not explicitly covered by para 1113. But if others are convinced it is I’m not adhered to.

  Here’s an attempt to re-formulate the question:
  7) Some comments raise concern in context with the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and “independent” members) that ICANN board and PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other board responsible. Para 1113 of the proposal indicates the PTI’s board operational oversight responsibilities “under the IANA functions contract with ICANN”. We would prefer a clear statement on where the last responsibility for carrying out the IANA functions is allocated.

  If you or other native speakers could help with the formulation, I’d appreciate.



Ok, I see the direction of this now. Here is what I would suggest:

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. Para 1113 of the proposal 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.


Alissa



  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich



  From: Alissa Cooper 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:20 PM
  To: WUKnoben 
  Cc: ICG 
  Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3

  Hi Wolf-Ulrich, 

    On Sep 23, 2015, at 5:51 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:

    All,
    following the ICG call today, I have formulated two questions to CWG (to be inserted in the total list of questions) for further amendments:

    6) The comments regarding PTI board fall in two broader categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected in the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what actual member selection process should be. We note that the board composition and selection procedure have been extensively discussed within the CWG and should be elaborated in detail during the implementation planning.


    Para 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.” However, from the underlying legal expertise (Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers being with the PTI board. We’d like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. In this case we recommend adapting the related text accordingly.

  I would suggest being slightly more explicit about the change we are proposing. I would suggest the following in lieu of the paragraph above:

  Para 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 (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.”




    7) Some comments raise concern with regards to the risk that ICANN board and PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other board responsible. The ICG deems a clarification being necessary on this point in the following way: If the CWG agrees that the ultimate responsibility for the PTI performance should be undoubtedly clear then we would ask to provide us with related text to the allocation of these responsibilities.

  I’m a bit confused by this question. It’s hard to believe the CWG would not want the responsibilities to be clearly allocated between the two boards. Furthermore, paragraph 1113 seems fairly explicit on this point: it is the role of the PTI board to ensure that PTI fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions contract with ICANN. Why doesn’t that answer the question? And if it doesn't, are we asking the CWG to amend their proposal? Or are we just asking the question so that we can understand the proposal better (as with the RZM question)? 

  Thanks,
  Alissa





    Best regards

    Wolf-Ulrich



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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/15d30488/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 23 20:15:48 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:15:48 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions to send - today and tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <3F617EAA-2B41-4B2B-AE41-AC63947C3270@tislabs.com>
References: <CF50CE90-B21B-4366-A4FF-4A51A52FB614@cooperw.in>
	<D59B2DE8-9001-440C-A11D-518C9048EC37@tislabs.com>
	<F8EAD0BB-ABCD-4B9D-B5FB-1C5FDC689041@cooperw.in>
	<DACF59E5-8EE3-4D9F-BA92-242A9311D497@cooperw.in>
	<3F617EAA-2B41-4B2B-AE41-AC63947C3270@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <F383E445-05D9-4908-AB1A-3B7F6A865F8E@cooperw.in>

Updated doc attached <https://www.dropbox.com/s/jy5o5gfnrp6i9iv/questions-for-OCs-v2.docx?dl=0>. I propose to send CWG questions 1-5 after 23:59 UTC today, and send the rest after 20:00 UTC tomorrow, to give the ICG one more day to review and finalize them.

I incorporated an edit from Joe on the cooperation question.

Alissa


> On Sep 23, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
> 
> Alissa,
> 
> Thanks for incorporating the changes - I agree that adding the Daniel disclaimer is a good addition.  I think that I’ll have a little time later today to look at the rest of them later today but doubt that I’ll see other things.
> 
> Russ
> 
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
> 
>> I made one edit to include the disclaimer that Daniel had suggested and that we discussed at the F2F about setting expectations concerning further public comment:
>> 
>> "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."
>> 
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>> <questions-for-OCs-v1.docx>
>> 
>>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 6:06 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The attached document reflects these changes and has the question to all of the OCs about coordination in the event of change of operator. Everyone please have a look. I will keep adding the questions to this document as we finalize them.
>>> 
>>> Also in Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndriu6fj9o0c3sb/questions-for-OCs-v1.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndriu6fj9o0c3sb/questions-for-OCs-v1.docx?dl=0>
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> <questions-for-OCs-v1.docx>
>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 10:09 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com <mailto:mundy at tislabs.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Alissa, thanks for putting this together - it’s very helpful.
>>>> 
>>>> I think that we agreed at our last f2f meeting that it would be best to provide suggested text changes rather than editing the word documents so I’m going to suggest some changes a portion of the first RZM question:
>>>> 
>>>> Currently reads:  … requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150, sections 2 and 3 of Part 1 of the …
>>>> 
>>>> Suggested change:  … requirements expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the  … 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> RussM
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I thought having the OC questions in one place would make it easier to live-edit on the call if necessary: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hx06iasdvh3kd4/questions-for-OCs-v0.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hx06iasdvh3kd4/questions-for-OCs-v0.docx?dl=0> (also attached)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’ll try to update this before the call if changes come in but the call is at 4:00 in my time zone so no guarantees.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> 
>>>>> <questions-for-OCs-v0.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/041344c9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: questions-for-OCs-v2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 159750 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/041344c9/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/041344c9/attachment-0001.html>

From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Thu Sep 24 06:15:55 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 02:15:55 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Larry Strickling's blog
Message-ID: <45C3C6EB-DB87-419D-BE84-0FB36878129B@piuha.net>

Reflections from Larry Strickling regarding the public feedback on the IANA transition proposal.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/reflections-iana-stewardship-transition-process

TL;DR transition plan good, separate accountability effort needs more work. Gives guidance for that work.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/5034997e/attachment.sig>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Thu Sep 24 11:10:26 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:10:26 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Larry Strickling's blog
In-Reply-To: <45C3C6EB-DB87-419D-BE84-0FB36878129B@piuha.net>
References: <45C3C6EB-DB87-419D-BE84-0FB36878129B@piuha.net>
Message-ID: <5603DA22.3090403@oracle.com>

Seems that his comments pertain mostly to the ICANN Accountability work 
streams. Do we need to consider any thoughts of dependency beyond the 
names accountability elements?

On 9/24/2015 2:15 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Reflections from Larry Strickling regarding the public feedback on the IANA transition proposal.
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/reflections-iana-stewardship-transition-process
>
> TL;DR transition plan good, separate accountability effort needs more work. Gives guidance for that work.
>
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/6d6d0184/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Thu Sep 24 11:30:41 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:30:41 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Larry Strickling's blog
In-Reply-To: <5603DA22.3090403@oracle.com>
References: <45C3C6EB-DB87-419D-BE84-0FB36878129B@piuha.net>
	<5603DA22.3090403@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <489B8B86-8CBA-4A87-B922-AB0DE779BE67@frobbit.se>

On 24 Sep 2015, at 13:10, joseph alhadeff wrote:

> Seems that his comments pertain mostly to the ICANN Accountability work streams. Do we need to consider any thoughts of dependency beyond the names accountability elements?

My view: Your interpretation matches mine. To answer your question: no

   Patrik

> On 9/24/2015 2:15 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> Reflections from Larry Strickling regarding the public feedback on the IANA transition proposal.
>>
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/reflections-iana-stewardship-transition-process
>>
>> TL;DR transition plan good, separate accountability effort needs more work. Gives guidance for that work.
>>
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/e953e50f/attachment.sig>

From fmniebel at gmail.com  Thu Sep 24 11:32:52 2015
From: fmniebel at gmail.com (michael niebel)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:32:52 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Larry Strickling's blog
In-Reply-To: <489B8B86-8CBA-4A87-B922-AB0DE779BE67@frobbit.se>
References: <45C3C6EB-DB87-419D-BE84-0FB36878129B@piuha.net>
	<5603DA22.3090403@oracle.com>
	<489B8B86-8CBA-4A87-B922-AB0DE779BE67@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <CAMK78HWkpJWXd4OF5uz50UE5KiDEE7UBH2QX2guYCxBJHz3LWw@mail.gmail.com>

Agree
Michael

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> On 24 Sep 2015, at 13:10, joseph alhadeff wrote:
>
> > Seems that his comments pertain mostly to the ICANN Accountability work
> streams. Do we need to consider any thoughts of dependency beyond the names
> accountability elements?
>
> My view: Your interpretation matches mine. To answer your question: no
>
>    Patrik
>
> > On 9/24/2015 2:15 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> >> Reflections from Larry Strickling regarding the public feedback on the
> IANA transition proposal.
> >>
> >>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/reflections-iana-stewardship-transition-process
> >>
> >> TL;DR transition plan good, separate accountability effort needs more
> work. Gives guidance for that work.
> >>
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/da13f02d/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 24 12:48:33 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 05:48:33 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Questions from the ICG - batch
	1
References: <8870F0A2-6CE9-44B0-A5ED-48B84D1D0DC4@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <1FEA40E0-2692-40D5-BF10-4D9AABA8D06F@cooperw.in>

FYI

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Questions from the ICG - batch 1
> Date: September 23, 2015 at 8:25:23 PM PDT
> To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> 
> Dear CWG,
> 
> Based on comments received during the ICG’s public comment period, the ICG has a number of questions for the CWG. We are sending these questions in more than one batch. The first batch below has agreement from the ICG so we are sending them now; we are aiming to send another batch before the end of the week.
> 
> 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.
> 
> RZM
> 
> 1)  Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, the ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to inform us whether or not the Verisign/ICANN proposal (available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf>) for revising Root Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the transition proposal.
> 
> 2)  The names part of the proposal contains subtle but significant discrepancies in the way it describes the roles of the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) and the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM). It also seems to contain different requirements for a process to change those roles. Paragraph 1158 in Part 1 of the transition proposal describes the RZM and the IANA functions operator as separate “roles” with distinct functions, and says "should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation." On the other hand Annex S, the Draft Proposed Term Sheet (page 136), describe the IFO and RZM as "two roles that are performed by two different entities," and adds "any amendment to the roles and responsibilities of PTI and the RZM ... will require approval of the ICANN board [and the members of ICANN or a special IFR].”
> 
> Which of these two approaches better reflects the consensus of the names operational community: the one embodied in Annex S or the one embodied in paragraph 1158? Paragraph 1158 does not clearly rule out having the RZM and IFO in the same organization, as long as the "roles" and "functions" are distinct. Whereas Annex S suggests (in bracketed language) that any change or merger in the roles would be subject to community accountability, 1158 suggests only a “wide community consultation.” The ICG would like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation. Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate.
> 
> ccTLDs
> 
> 3)  We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG). The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.” Please let us know if you agree to this amendment.
> 
> 4)  The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005).  This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether Part 1 of the combined proposal could be adapted accordingly. If the CWG agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for paragraph 1036 and any associated footnotes so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined proposal.
> 
> 5)  We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283). This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT. While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member. In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement. If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment.
> 
> Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/572f21e5/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Thu Sep 24 13:32:55 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:32:55 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Larry Strickling's blog
In-Reply-To: <CAMK78HWkpJWXd4OF5uz50UE5KiDEE7UBH2QX2guYCxBJHz3LWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <45C3C6EB-DB87-419D-BE84-0FB36878129B@piuha.net>
	<5603DA22.3090403@oracle.com>
	<489B8B86-8CBA-4A87-B922-AB0DE779BE67@frobbit.se>
	<CAMK78HWkpJWXd4OF5uz50UE5KiDEE7UBH2QX2guYCxBJHz3LWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589127705EBBA5440A3D52BAC430@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Agree with Michael, Patrik and Jari.
The message about lack of consensus pertains primarily to the CCWG. But of course since CCWG accountability measures are incorporated by reference into our proposal we are affected by it. Let’s see what comes out of the Santa Monica meeting.

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of michael niebel
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 7:33 AM
To: Patrik Fältström
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Larry Strickling's blog

Agree
Michael

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se<mailto:paf at frobbit.se>> wrote:
On 24 Sep 2015, at 13:10, joseph alhadeff wrote:

> Seems that his comments pertain mostly to the ICANN Accountability work streams. Do we need to consider any thoughts of dependency beyond the names accountability elements?

My view: Your interpretation matches mine. To answer your question: no

   Patrik

> On 9/24/2015 2:15 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> Reflections from Larry Strickling regarding the public feedback on the IANA transition proposal.
>>
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/reflections-iana-stewardship-transition-process
>>
>> TL;DR transition plan good, separate accountability effort needs more work. Gives guidance for that work.
>>
>> Jari
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/79982d4f/attachment.html>

From housley at vigilsec.com  Thu Sep 24 16:44:40 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:44:40 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions to send - today and tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <F383E445-05D9-4908-AB1A-3B7F6A865F8E@cooperw.in>
References: <CF50CE90-B21B-4366-A4FF-4A51A52FB614@cooperw.in>
	<D59B2DE8-9001-440C-A11D-518C9048EC37@tislabs.com>
	<F8EAD0BB-ABCD-4B9D-B5FB-1C5FDC689041@cooperw.in>
	<DACF59E5-8EE3-4D9F-BA92-242A9311D497@cooperw.in>
	<3F617EAA-2B41-4B2B-AE41-AC63947C3270@tislabs.com>
	<F383E445-05D9-4908-AB1A-3B7F6A865F8E@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <4D72C9F7-B94A-497B-B38E-0B6AEBEFC260@vigilsec.com>

For the comments that we are sending to CRISP and IANAPLAN, I do not think we expect updated proposals.  Rather, we just want confirmation of our interpretation.

Russ



On Sep 23, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Updated doc attached <https://www.dropbox.com/s/jy5o5gfnrp6i9iv/questions-for-OCs-v2.docx?dl=0>. I propose to send CWG questions 1-5 after 23:59 UTC today, and send the rest after 20:00 UTC tomorrow, to give the ICG one more day to review and finalize them.
> 
> I incorporated an edit from Joe on the cooperation question.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> <questions-for-OCs-v2.docx>
> 
>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Alissa,
>> 
>> Thanks for incorporating the changes - I agree that adding the Daniel disclaimer is a good addition.  I think that I’ll have a little time later today to look at the rest of them later today but doubt that I’ll see other things.
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>>> I made one edit to include the disclaimer that Daniel had suggested and that we discussed at the F2F about setting expectations concerning further public comment:
>>> 
>>> "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."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> <questions-for-OCs-v1.docx>
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 6:06 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The attached document reflects these changes and has the question to all of the OCs about coordination in the event of change of operator. Everyone please have a look. I will keep adding the questions to this document as we finalize them.
>>>> 
>>>> Also in Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndriu6fj9o0c3sb/questions-for-OCs-v1.docx?dl=0
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>> 
>>>> <questions-for-OCs-v1.docx>
>>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 10:09 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alissa, thanks for putting this together - it’s very helpful.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think that we agreed at our last f2f meeting that it would be best to provide suggested text changes rather than editing the word documents so I’m going to suggest some changes a portion of the first RZM question:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently reads:  … requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150, sections 2 and 3 of Part 1 of the …
>>>>> 
>>>>> Suggested change:  … requirements expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the  … 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> RussM
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I thought having the OC questions in one place would make it easier to live-edit on the call if necessary: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hx06iasdvh3kd4/questions-for-OCs-v0.docx?dl=0 (also attached)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’ll try to update this before the call if changes come in but the call is at 4:00 in my time zone so no guarantees.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <questions-for-OCs-v0.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/b4c46e03/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 24 18:00:54 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:00:54 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions to send - today and tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <4D72C9F7-B94A-497B-B38E-0B6AEBEFC260@vigilsec.com>
References: <CF50CE90-B21B-4366-A4FF-4A51A52FB614@cooperw.in>
	<D59B2DE8-9001-440C-A11D-518C9048EC37@tislabs.com>
	<F8EAD0BB-ABCD-4B9D-B5FB-1C5FDC689041@cooperw.in>
	<DACF59E5-8EE3-4D9F-BA92-242A9311D497@cooperw.in>
	<3F617EAA-2B41-4B2B-AE41-AC63947C3270@tislabs.com>
	<F383E445-05D9-4908-AB1A-3B7F6A865F8E@cooperw.in>
	<4D72C9F7-B94A-497B-B38E-0B6AEBEFC260@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <F4FFEFBE-877E-4F69-952D-71137C150D8C@cooperw.in>

Thanks, Russ. Does that apply to these questions to the CWG as well (which Alan sent yesterday)?

> Q: 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.
> 
> Q: Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA functions.
> 
> Q: 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.
> 
> Q: 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.

> Q: 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.


Thanks,
Alissa

> On Sep 24, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> For the comments that we are sending to CRISP and IANAPLAN, I do not think we expect updated proposals.  Rather, we just want confirmation of our interpretation.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 
>> Updated doc attached <https://www.dropbox.com/s/jy5o5gfnrp6i9iv/questions-for-OCs-v2.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/jy5o5gfnrp6i9iv/questions-for-OCs-v2.docx?dl=0>>. I propose to send CWG questions 1-5 after 23:59 UTC today, and send the rest after 20:00 UTC tomorrow, to give the ICG one more day to review and finalize them.
>> 
>> I incorporated an edit from Joe on the cooperation question.
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>> <questions-for-OCs-v2.docx>
>> 
>>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com <mailto:mundy at tislabs.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Alissa,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for incorporating the changes - I agree that adding the Daniel disclaimer is a good addition.  I think that I’ll have a little time later today to look at the rest of them later today but doubt that I’ll see other things.
>>> 
>>> Russ
>>> 
>>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I made one edit to include the disclaimer that Daniel had suggested and that we discussed at the F2F about setting expectations concerning further public comment:
>>>> 
>>>> "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."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Alissa
>>>> 
>>>> <questions-for-OCs-v1.docx>
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 6:06 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The attached document reflects these changes and has the question to all of the OCs about coordination in the event of change of operator. Everyone please have a look. I will keep adding the questions to this document as we finalize them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also in Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndriu6fj9o0c3sb/questions-for-OCs-v1.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndriu6fj9o0c3sb/questions-for-OCs-v1.docx?dl=0>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> 
>>>>> <questions-for-OCs-v1.docx>
>>>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 10:09 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com <mailto:mundy at tislabs.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alissa, thanks for putting this together - it’s very helpful.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think that we agreed at our last f2f meeting that it would be best to provide suggested text changes rather than editing the word documents so I’m going to suggest some changes a portion of the first RZM question:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Currently reads:  … requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150, sections 2 and 3 of Part 1 of the …
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Suggested change:  … requirements expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the  … 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> RussM
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I thought having the OC questions in one place would make it easier to live-edit on the call if necessary: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hx06iasdvh3kd4/questions-for-OCs-v0.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hx06iasdvh3kd4/questions-for-OCs-v0.docx?dl=0> (also attached)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I’ll try to update this before the call if changes come in but the call is at 4:00 in my time zone so no guarantees.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> <questions-for-OCs-v0.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/086b5ed6/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Sep 24 18:09:38 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:09:38 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Slide deck - PTI-related issues v2
Message-ID: <02d701d0f6f4$3002fe20$9008fa60$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Per Action Item 4 from the F2F meeting, please find v2 (attached and linked
below) of the PTI-related issues with the edit as requested by Jean-Jacques
added to slide 1, point C23:

 

"PTI Board should be geographically balanced, and should be based on the
number of Internet users within each geographic region in order to
adequately represent the interests of the Internet users within these
representatives' regions" (50).

 

Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1jeLQcc

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/f33dd943/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PTI related issues-v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 196701 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/f33dd943/attachment.pdf>

From housley at vigilsec.com  Thu Sep 24 18:09:52 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:09:52 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions to send - today and tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <F4FFEFBE-877E-4F69-952D-71137C150D8C@cooperw.in>
References: <CF50CE90-B21B-4366-A4FF-4A51A52FB614@cooperw.in>
	<D59B2DE8-9001-440C-A11D-518C9048EC37@tislabs.com>
	<F8EAD0BB-ABCD-4B9D-B5FB-1C5FDC689041@cooperw.in>
	<DACF59E5-8EE3-4D9F-BA92-242A9311D497@cooperw.in>
	<3F617EAA-2B41-4B2B-AE41-AC63947C3270@tislabs.com>
	<F383E445-05D9-4908-AB1A-3B7F6A865F8E@cooperw.in>
	<4D72C9F7-B94A-497B-B38E-0B6AEBEFC260@vigilsec.com>
	<F4FFEFBE-877E-4F69-952D-71137C150D8C@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <EF800FF0-87C1-4EE7-81A4-68900DA21C13@vigilsec.com>

Alissa:

> Thanks, Russ. Does that apply to these questions to the CWG as well (which Alan sent yesterday)?
> 
>> Q: 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.
>> 
>> Q: Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA functions.
>> 
>> Q: 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.
>> 
>> Q: 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.
> 
>> Q: 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.

If the responses are as we discussed in Los Angeles, then I would expect statements of clarification without any update to the proposal.  If our prediction is wrong, then it depends on the actual response.

Russ



From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 24 21:40:29 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:40:29 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589FB6B1C4296C130898CC8AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20150922143221.011DC1C158D@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<DM2PR07MB589FB6B1C4296C130898CC8AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <F8A85DBF-2112-453D-B472-E15DC2032D8E@cooperw.in>

We are working on this with the secretariat. Many of the unknowns are individuals who did not specify a country of origin.

What would people like to do with multinational corporations that did not specify a country of origin? Global or unknown? Or headquarters region?

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> On the slide deck, in the geographic classification of comments on slide 4 I think it is misleading to classify all comments not associated with a particular country or region as "unknown." Many organizations (e.g., any AC, SO, ICANN Stakeholder Group (SG) and some business or civil society groups) are global or transnational in scope. "Unknown" implies that they have a country or region and we just don't know what it is. That may be the case for a few comments, but in most cases the organization in question is just not confined to a single country. 
> 
> --MM
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Joseph Alhadeff
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:39 AM
>> To: manal at tra.gov.eg; jen at icgsec.asia; internal-cg at ianacg.org;
>> jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
>> 
>> Perhaps a note early in the devk the comments highlighted may be
>> illustrative of the range of comment but may not detail all who commented?
>> 
>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> From: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior [jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br]
>> Received: Tuesday, 22 Sep 2015, 7:13AM
>> To: 'Manal Ismail' [manal at tra.gov.eg]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia];
>> internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
>> 
>> Thank you, Manal.
>> 
>> We support your suggestion.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Jandyr
>> 
>> -----Mensagem original-----
>> De: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] Em nome de Manal
>> Ismail Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de setembro de 2015 10:50
>> Para: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
>> 
>> Thanks Jennifer ..
>> 
>> If ok with colleagues, I suggest adding to the slide deck:
>> 
>> -          Brazil as one of the commenters on the jurisdiction issue, and
>> 
>> -          Sweden as one of the commenters on RZM issue
>> 
>> for the record and in line with our discussion in LA ..
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> 
>> --Manal
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Jennifer Chung
>> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:49 AM
>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that contains edits
>> to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83,
>> InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD
>> <http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jennifer
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: ICG Slide deck v3
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as requested
>> by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> "E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be part
>> of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 24 22:05:01 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:05:01 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Questions from the ICG - batch
	2
References: <2A90599C-AA5C-4B01-9DCD-853DF2A48CFC@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <D60604EE-ACF4-44B1-96D8-ED27B585F730@cooperw.in>

FYI

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Questions from the ICG - batch 2
> Date: September 24, 2015 at 3:01:01 PM PDT
> To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/7bf18275/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 24 22:05:15 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:05:15 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
References: <56A1B728-98DF-409A-B2B6-2624F53FE175@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <32EA0971-DC53-483F-B0E5-B0B5A17E7E72@cooperw.in>

FYI

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Subject: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
> Date: September 24, 2015 at 3:02:29 PM PDT
> To: "Ianaplan at Ietf. Org" <ianaplan at ietf.org>
> 
> Dear IANAPLAN WG,
> 
> Based on comments received during the ICG’s public comment period, the ICG has a question for the protocol parameters community. We are requesting a response to this question 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 protocol parameters community 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 protocol parameters community 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.
> 
> 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? If so, the ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal.
> 
> Please let us know if the question requires clarification.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/4c9c8c11/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Sep 24 22:05:38 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:05:38 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG
References: <2CFBA55A-D5D0-4964-B838-251CFD0CFBA5@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <BB70BEAC-FEDA-4867-9707-57FCA46B38AC@cooperw.in>

FYI

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG
> Date: September 24, 2015 at 3:04:41 PM PDT
> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
> 
> 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? If so, the 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150924/79545e00/attachment.html>

From fmniebel at gmail.com  Thu Sep 24 23:05:27 2015
From: fmniebel at gmail.com (michael niebel)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:05:27 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
In-Reply-To: <F8A85DBF-2112-453D-B472-E15DC2032D8E@cooperw.in>
References: <20150922143221.011DC1C158D@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<DM2PR07MB589FB6B1C4296C130898CC8AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<F8A85DBF-2112-453D-B472-E15DC2032D8E@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <CAMK78HX+MQdhvq_PCX5MA5rvaDNOxbkxj8pXiqRD0+7ExizXmA@mail.gmail.com>

In the case of multinational corporations I do not see an elegant solution.
"unknown" sounds strange for corporations. "global" describes nature and
activity reach.
The traditional approach of "headquarter region" to me looks the most
pragmatic. (despite the remaining risk that the submission came from a
subsidiary)
Michael

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> We are working on this with the secretariat. Many of the unknowns are
> individuals who did not specify a country of origin.
>
> What would people like to do with multinational corporations that did not
> specify a country of origin? Global or unknown? Or headquarters region?
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> > On Sep 22, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Mueller, Milton L <
> milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On the slide deck, in the geographic classification of comments on slide
> 4 I think it is misleading to classify all comments not associated with a
> particular country or region as "unknown." Many organizations (e.g., any
> AC, SO, ICANN Stakeholder Group (SG) and some business or civil society
> groups) are global or transnational in scope. "Unknown" implies that they
> have a country or region and we just don't know what it is. That may be the
> case for a few comments, but in most cases the organization in question is
> just not confined to a single country.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> >> Joseph Alhadeff
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:39 AM
> >> To: manal at tra.gov.eg; jen at icgsec.asia; internal-cg at ianacg.org;
> >> jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br
> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
> >>
> >> Perhaps a note early in the devk the comments highlighted may be
> >> illustrative of the range of comment but may not detail all who
> commented?
> >>
> >> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> From: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior [jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br
> ]
> >> Received: Tuesday, 22 Sep 2015, 7:13AM
> >> To: 'Manal Ismail' [manal at tra.gov.eg]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia
> ];
> >> internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
> >> Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
> >>
> >> Thank you, Manal.
> >>
> >> We support your suggestion.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Jandyr
> >>
> >> -----Mensagem original-----
> >> De: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] Em nome de
> Manal
> >> Ismail Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de setembro de 2015 10:50
> >> Para: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> >> Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
> >>
> >> Thanks Jennifer ..
> >>
> >> If ok with colleagues, I suggest adding to the slide deck:
> >>
> >> -          Brazil as one of the commenters on the jurisdiction issue,
> and
> >>
> >> -          Sweden as one of the commenters on RZM issue
> >>
> >> for the record and in line with our discussion in LA ..
> >>
> >> Kind Regards
> >>
> >> --Manal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> >> Jennifer Chung
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:49 AM
> >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> >> Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that
> contains edits
> >> to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83,
> >> InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD
> >> <http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jennifer
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
> >> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
> >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> >> Subject: ICG Slide deck v3
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as
> requested
> >> by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be
> part
> >> of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jennifer
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150925/aa5cedfc/attachment.html>

From apb at cequrux.com  Fri Sep 25 13:35:25 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:35:25 +0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] PTI Slide 2 action items
In-Reply-To: <4E801320-75C0-4798-BB9B-5CF325C12ED9@cooperw.in>
References: <20150923055232.GC1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
	<20150923063454.GD1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
	<20150923151147.GM1103@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
	<4E801320-75C0-4798-BB9B-5CF325C12ED9@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <20150925133525.GA1738@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>Thanks Alan. I have a question and comment about these proposed questions to the CWG:
>
>> Proposed questions to CWG-Stewardship:
>>
>> Q: 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.
>>
>> Q: Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA functions.
>>
>> Q: 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.
>>
>> Q: 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.
>
>> Q: 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.
>
>Do we expect the answers to any of the above questions to result in amendments to the text in Part 1? Or are we simply asking for clarification such that we might reflect that clarity appropriately in Part 0? If it’s the former, I think we need to ask the CWG to provide amended text. My personal view is that it is the former for the last two questions only.

I am incliined to agree with your assessment that only the last two
questions are likely to result in changes to Part 1, but I am not sure.

Alan Barrett


From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Sep 25 17:57:48 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 13:57:48 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
In-Reply-To: <5605888C.7070400@oracle.com>
References: <56015C55.8010301@oracle.com> <5605888C.7070400@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <010e01d0f7bb$b181c040$148540c0$@icgsec.asia>

FYI please see the email from Joe below with the attached proposed text.

 

From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:47 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Subject: Fwd: Please find attached revised summary proposal

 

 

FYI

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 


Subject: 

Please find attached revised summary proposal


Date: 

Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:49:09 -0400


From: 

joseph alhadeff  <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>


Organization: 

Oracle Corporation


To: 

internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>   <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> <internal-cg at icann.org>

 

Please note that I found no cross reference in our proposal to the role 
of government as multistakeholder participant that would address the 
concern raised that such participation may bee seen as at odds with the 
NTIA criteria.  I have tried to raise an innocuous addition as a 
footnote to deal with the concern in a neutral fashion.  I have 
highlighted it in red to facilitate ease of comment.  Those topics 
highlighted in yellow are possible places where other more specific work 
may supersede this language and be replaced by a cross reference.  There 
is one margin question as well.
 
Thanks.
 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150925/ec35c8eb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NTIA Criteria rev.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 33792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150925/ec35c8eb/attachment.doc>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Fri Sep 25 22:23:33 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:23:33 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] my part 0 action items
Message-ID: <DAE7FBC3-EC16-46B4-84BC-1B86E6AA4E33@cooperw.in>

Attached and in Dropbox <https://www.dropbox.com/s/yb0gxl6hts533vp/transition-proposal-part0-v0-ALC.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/yb0gxl6hts533vp/transition-proposal-part0-v0-ALC.docx?dl=0>> is my attempt at text for these action items:

M6: 5    Cooper to write up summary of comments in general, e.g. statistics, general support or opposition, etc. (was Day 1 action item 1.) 
M6: 6    Cooper to add the expectation of numbers and protocol parameter community in regard to the scope of PTI in the Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 2)       
M6: 13  Cooper to draft text re Institutionalization of NTIA criteria for Part 0.               
M6: 14  Chairs to draft text describing community support for the proposal.      
#23: 4   (Cooper) to add text to part 0 section about PTI that points to places in the rest of the proposal where escalation is discussed by each of the communities and the big picture for how escalation works is described. 

Some of them can’t be properly completed until we hear back from the OCs.

Alissa

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150925/6ebb649d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: transition-proposal-part0-v0-ALC.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 383847 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150925/6ebb649d/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150925/6ebb649d/attachment-0001.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Sat Sep 26 00:26:51 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:26:51 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
In-Reply-To: <CAMK78HX+MQdhvq_PCX5MA5rvaDNOxbkxj8pXiqRD0+7ExizXmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150922143221.011DC1C158D@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<DM2PR07MB589FB6B1C4296C130898CC8AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<F8A85DBF-2112-453D-B472-E15DC2032D8E@cooperw.in>
	<CAMK78HX+MQdhvq_PCX5MA5rvaDNOxbkxj8pXiqRD0+7ExizXmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5194f0a5fdbe4b71b47ab671020c7cde@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Can’t we categorize:

1.       Multinational corporations as ‘Multinational’, to avoid falling into the risk mentioned by Michael,

2.       Other examples provided by Milton as ‘Global’, and

3.       the remaining as ‘Unknown’?

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of michael niebel
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:05 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4

In the case of multinational corporations I do not see an elegant solution. "unknown" sounds strange for corporations. "global" describes nature and activity reach.
The traditional approach of "headquarter region" to me looks the most pragmatic. (despite the remaining risk that the submission came from a subsidiary)
Michael

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
We are working on this with the secretariat. Many of the unknowns are individuals who did not specify a country of origin.

What would people like to do with multinational corporations that did not specify a country of origin? Global or unknown? Or headquarters region?

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu<mailto:milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
> On the slide deck, in the geographic classification of comments on slide 4 I think it is misleading to classify all comments not associated with a particular country or region as "unknown." Many organizations (e.g., any AC, SO, ICANN Stakeholder Group (SG) and some business or civil society groups) are global or transnational in scope. "Unknown" implies that they have a country or region and we just don't know what it is. That may be the case for a few comments, but in most cases the organization in question is just not confined to a single country.
>
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] On Behalf Of
>> Joseph Alhadeff
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:39 AM
>> To: manal at tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>; jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>;
>> jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
>>
>> Perhaps a note early in the devk the comments highlighted may be
>> illustrative of the range of comment but may not detail all who commented?
>>
>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com<http://www.nitrodesk.com>)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior [jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br>]
>> Received: Tuesday, 22 Sep 2015, 7:13AM
>> To: 'Manal Ismail' [manal at tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>];
>> internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org> [internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>]
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
>>
>> Thank you, Manal.
>>
>> We support your suggestion.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jandyr
>>
>> -----Mensagem original-----
>> De: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] Em nome de Manal
>> Ismail Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de setembro de 2015 10:50
>> Para: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
>>
>> Thanks Jennifer ..
>>
>> If ok with colleagues, I suggest adding to the slide deck:
>>
>> -          Brazil as one of the commenters on the jurisdiction issue, and
>>
>> -          Sweden as one of the commenters on RZM issue
>>
>> for the record and in line with our discussion in LA ..
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> --Manal
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] On Behalf Of
>> Jennifer Chung
>> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:49 AM
>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that contains edits
>> to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83,
>> InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD
>> <http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>' <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
>> Subject: ICG Slide deck v3
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as requested
>> by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> "E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be part
>> of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150926/55c055c7/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Sat Sep 26 15:01:15 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:01:15 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
In-Reply-To: <5194f0a5fdbe4b71b47ab671020c7cde@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <20150922143221.011DC1C158D@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<DM2PR07MB589FB6B1C4296C130898CC8AC450@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<F8A85DBF-2112-453D-B472-E15DC2032D8E@cooperw.in>
	<CAMK78HX+MQdhvq_PCX5MA5rvaDNOxbkxj8pXiqRD0+7ExizXmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5194f0a5fdbe4b71b47ab671020c7cde@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB5899F12EA3DE3E1E3A8E994AC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Works for me

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 8:27 PM
To: michael niebel <fmniebel at gmail.com>; Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4

Can’t we categorize:

1.       Multinational corporations as ‘Multinational’, to avoid falling into the risk mentioned by Michael,

2.       Other examples provided by Milton as ‘Global’, and

3.       the remaining as ‘Unknown’?

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of michael niebel
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:05 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4

In the case of multinational corporations I do not see an elegant solution. "unknown" sounds strange for corporations. "global" describes nature and activity reach.
The traditional approach of "headquarter region" to me looks the most pragmatic. (despite the remaining risk that the submission came from a subsidiary)
Michael

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
We are working on this with the secretariat. Many of the unknowns are individuals who did not specify a country of origin.

What would people like to do with multinational corporations that did not specify a country of origin? Global or unknown? Or headquarters region?

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu<mailto:milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
> On the slide deck, in the geographic classification of comments on slide 4 I think it is misleading to classify all comments not associated with a particular country or region as "unknown." Many organizations (e.g., any AC, SO, ICANN Stakeholder Group (SG) and some business or civil society groups) are global or transnational in scope. "Unknown" implies that they have a country or region and we just don't know what it is. That may be the case for a few comments, but in most cases the organization in question is just not confined to a single country.
>
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] On Behalf Of
>> Joseph Alhadeff
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:39 AM
>> To: manal at tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>; jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>;
>> jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
>>
>> Perhaps a note early in the devk the comments highlighted may be
>> illustrative of the range of comment but may not detail all who commented?
>>
>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com<http://www.nitrodesk.com>)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior [jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br>]
>> Received: Tuesday, 22 Sep 2015, 7:13AM
>> To: 'Manal Ismail' [manal at tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>];
>> internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org> [internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>]
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG Slide deck v4
>>
>> Thank you, Manal.
>>
>> We support your suggestion.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jandyr
>>
>> -----Mensagem original-----
>> De: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] Em nome de Manal
>> Ismail Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de setembro de 2015 10:50
>> Para: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
>>
>> Thanks Jennifer ..
>>
>> If ok with colleagues, I suggest adding to the slide deck:
>>
>> -          Brazil as one of the commenters on the jurisdiction issue, and
>>
>> -          Sweden as one of the commenters on RZM issue
>>
>> for the record and in line with our discussion in LA ..
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> --Manal
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] On Behalf Of
>> Jennifer Chung
>> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 12:49 AM
>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Slide deck v4
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find attached and linked below, v4 of the slide deck that contains edits
>> to slide 24 as requested by Keith Davidson (addition of CENTR-83,
>> InternetNZ-123 to the center column on point 3.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dropbox short link: http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD
>> <http://icgsec.asia/1Omp6UD>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:02 AM
>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>' <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
>> Subject: ICG Slide deck v3
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find attached v3 of the slide deck with edits to slide 22 as requested
>> by Wolf-Ulrich as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> "E. SLEs are crucial for IANA Functions Customers and as such should be part
>> of the complete ICG proposal (CENTR-83, NORID-141)"
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150926/812c8a4e/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Sat Sep 26 15:14:45 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:14:45 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
In-Reply-To: <010e01d0f7bb$b181c040$148540c0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <56015C55.8010301@oracle.com> <5605888C.7070400@oracle.com>
	<010e01d0f7bb$b181c040$148540c0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB5891A111E968688B4A8C6D0AC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Joe,

I would like to suggest some improvements in  the paragraph on the NTIA criterion pertaining to governments.

You wrote:

A range of comments addressed the role of governments.  Among the most relevant: a couple felt that government roles would be too constrained and they would not be able to fulfill all of the criteria of the Tunis Agenda; a couple also highlighted a concern for the possible role future legislation by US government based on concern of jurisdiction; and more commentators focused on what they perceived to be a possible enhanced voting role for the GAC and concerns of governments as owners of ccTLDs in the CSC.  The proposal cannot address all hypothetical situations and has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements.  The ICG sees no further action as appropriate at this point, but notes the concerns raised.


I would propose to replace this paragraph with the following statement:

The overwhelming majority of comments agreed that the proposal does not replace NTIA stewardship with a government-led or intergovernmental solution. Some comments felt that governmental roles would be too constrained; others felt that the role of the U.S. government was still too strong due to the retention of U.S. jurisdiction. A few other commentators expressed concerns about the role of government-controlled ccTLDs in the CSC. The ICG notes the concerns raised, but believes that the proposal has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements, and thus sees no further action as needed.

A small number of comments expressed concern about the strengthening of the GAC in the new accountability arrangements. The ICG notes that insofar as they justify changes in the proposal, these comments are best addressed by the CCWG on enhanced accountability.


From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:58 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal

FYI please see the email from Joe below with the attached proposed text.

From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:47 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>
Subject: Fwd: Please find attached revised summary proposal


FYI

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:

Please find attached revised summary proposal

Date:

Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:49:09 -0400

From:

joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com><mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>

Organization:

Oracle Corporation

To:

internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> <internal-cg at icann.org><mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>



Please note that I found no cross reference in our proposal to the role

of government as multistakeholder participant that would address the

concern raised that such participation may bee seen as at odds with the

NTIA criteria.  I have tried to raise an innocuous addition as a

footnote to deal with the concern in a neutral fashion.  I have

highlighted it in red to facilitate ease of comment.  Those topics

highlighted in yellow are possible places where other more specific work

may supersede this language and be replaced by a cross reference.  There

is one margin question as well.



Thanks.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150926/a7ff68c8/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Sat Sep 26 15:52:03 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:52:03 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 language for RZM
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589EB8C7FE7AEF53E3206FAAC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

I thought I had sent this out before but now I am not sure. So to be safe I send it now (again?)

The ICG recognizes that a complete and finalized transition requires more than implementing its own proposal. It also requires revising the relationship between the current Root Zone Maintainer (Verisign), Root Zone Administrator (the U.S. Commerce Department) and IANA functions operator (ICANN). Insofar as those revisions require amendments to (or elimination of) the cooperative agreement between the NTIA and Verisign, the process will be controlled by the NTIA, not the ICG. This "related and parallel transition," as the NTIA described it in its March 2014 announcement, involves interactions between NTIA, ICANN and Verisign that are outside of the ICG process. Nevertheless, the NTIA itself has recognized that "aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement," and thus the results of that process must be consistent with the ICG proposal's approach to the IANA Functions.

So far the NTIA process seems to have built upon the output of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. The names CWG proposed elimination of the NTIA's root zone change authorization function and described a set of guidelines and principles regarding post-transition root zone administration. To the ICG, the post-transition RZM architecture proposed in an NTIA-solicited document by ICANN and Verisign does not seem to be inconsistent with those guidelines and principles.

In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholder groups 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:

*        Asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer;

*        Asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements
<Additional text would depend on the result of these inquiries. E.g., if CWG replies to our first question saying, "yes, the second principle implies that different organizations should be providing IFO and RZM, and before that changes there should be a consultation that obtains consensus" then we can say to the NTIA: "make sure any revisions in the Verisign cooperative agreement/ICANN arrangements you approve are not inconsistent with that." If CWG says that the proposal of ICANN-Verisign meets their requirements then we have no need to make any comment. If it does not we need to convey to NTIA-ICANN-Verisign what is missing. >



Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150926/7c2042e1/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Sat Sep 26 16:00:40 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:00:40 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB5891A111E968688B4A8C6D0AC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <56015C55.8010301@oracle.com> <5605888C.7070400@oracle.com>
	<010e01d0f7bb$b181c040$148540c0$@icgsec.asia>
	<DM2PR07MB5891A111E968688B4A8C6D0AC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5606C128.7030609@oracle.com>

Milton:

I am fine with the suggestion, if others are OK.. Recall that they 
yellow was to see if there was a needed cross reference to other 
sections that might address the issue more fully.  I recall that a 
question had been raised at the meeting, perhaps by Kavouss, questioning 
the assertion related to voting in the CSC being a real issue due to 
issues being resolved in parallel workstreams...

Joe

On 9/26/2015 11:14 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> I would like to suggest some improvements in  the paragraph on the 
> NTIA criterion pertaining to governments.
>
> You wrote:
>
> A range of comments addressed the role of governments.  Among the most 
> relevant: a couple felt that government roles would be too constrained 
> and they would not be able to fulfill all of the criteria of the Tunis 
> Agenda; a couple also highlighted a concern for the possible role 
> future legislation by US government based on concern of jurisdiction; 
> and more commentators focused on what they perceived to be a possible 
> enhanced voting role for the GAC and concerns of governments as owners 
> of ccTLDs in the CSC.  The proposal cannot address all hypothetical 
> situations and has relied on the community processes to find the right 
> balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements.  
> The ICG sees no further action as appropriate at this point, but notes 
> the concerns raised.
>
> I would propose to replace this paragraph with the following statement:
>
> The overwhelming majority of comments agreed that the proposal does 
> not replace NTIA stewardship with a government-led or 
> intergovernmental solution. Some comments felt that governmental roles 
> would be too constrained; others felt that the role of the U.S. 
> government was still too strong due to the retention of U.S. 
> jurisdiction. A few other commentators expressed concerns about the 
> role of government-controlled ccTLDs in the CSC. The ICG notes the 
> concerns raised, but believes that the proposal has relied on the 
> community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder 
> equities and operational requirements, and thus sees no further action 
> as needed.
>
> A small number of comments expressed concern about the strengthening 
> of the GAC in the new accountability arrangements. The ICG notes that 
> insofar as they justify changes in the proposal, these comments are 
> best addressed by the CCWG on enhanced accountability.
>
> *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf 
> Of *Jennifer Chung
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 1:58 PM
> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org
> *Subject:* [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
>
> FYI please see the email from Joe below with the attached proposed text.
>
> *From:*joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 1:47 PM
> *To:* Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>
> *Subject:* Fwd: Please find attached revised summary proposal
>
> FYI
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
> *Subject: *
>
> 	
>
> Please find attached revised summary proposal
>
> *Date: *
>
> 	
>
> Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:49:09 -0400
>
> *From: *
>
> 	
>
> joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> 
> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>
> *Organization: *
>
> 	
>
> Oracle Corporation
>
> *To: *
>
> 	
>
> internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> 
> <internal-cg at icann.org> <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>
>
> Please note that I found no cross reference in our proposal to the role
> of government as multistakeholder participant that would address the
> concern raised that such participation may bee seen as at odds with the
> NTIA criteria.  I have tried to raise an innocuous addition as a
> footnote to deal with the concern in a neutral fashion.  I have
> highlighted it in red to facilitate ease of comment.  Those topics
> highlighted in yellow are possible places where other more specific work
> may supersede this language and be replaced by a cross reference.  There
> is one margin question as well.
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150926/7c88fc2f/attachment.html>

From housley at vigilsec.com  Sat Sep 26 16:01:38 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:01:38 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB5891A111E968688B4A8C6D0AC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <56015C55.8010301@oracle.com> <5605888C.7070400@oracle.com>
	<010e01d0f7bb$b181c040$148540c0$@icgsec.asia>
	<DM2PR07MB5891A111E968688B4A8C6D0AC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <773928CE-5E8F-472F-9887-AC9E8A66D18F@vigilsec.com>

I like the Edits that Milton is proposing.

Russ


On Sep 26, 2015, at 11:14 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

> Joe,
>  
> I would like to suggest some improvements in  the paragraph on the NTIA criterion pertaining to governments.
>  
> You wrote:
>  
> A range of comments addressed the role of governments.  Among the most relevant: a couple felt that government roles would be too constrained and they would not be able to fulfill all of the criteria of the Tunis Agenda; a couple also highlighted a concern for the possible role future legislation by US government based on concern of jurisdiction; and more commentators focused on what they perceived to be a possible enhanced voting role for the GAC and concerns of governments as owners of ccTLDs in the CSC.  The proposal cannot address all hypothetical situations and has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements.  The ICG sees no further action as appropriate at this point, but notes the concerns raised.
>  
>  
> I would propose to replace this paragraph with the following statement:
>  
> The overwhelming majority of comments agreed that the proposal does not replace NTIA stewardship with a government-led or intergovernmental solution. Some comments felt that governmental roles would be too constrained; others felt that the role of the U.S. government was still too strong due to the retention of U.S. jurisdiction. A few other commentators expressed concerns about the role of government-controlled ccTLDs in the CSC. The ICG notes the concerns raised, but believes that the proposal has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements, and thus sees no further action as needed.
>  
> A small number of comments expressed concern about the strengthening of the GAC in the new accountability arrangements. The ICG notes that insofar as they justify changes in the proposal, these comments are best addressed by the CCWG on enhanced accountability.
>  
>  
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:58 PM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
>  
> FYI please see the email from Joe below with the attached proposed text.
>  
> From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:47 PM
> To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
> Subject: Fwd: Please find attached revised summary proposal
>  
>  
> FYI
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:
> Please find attached revised summary proposal
> Date:
> Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:49:09 -0400
> From:
> joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> Organization:
> Oracle Corporation
> To:
> internal-cg at icann.org <internal-cg at icann.org>
>  
> 
> Please note that I found no cross reference in our proposal to the role 
> of government as multistakeholder participant that would address the 
> concern raised that such participation may bee seen as at odds with the 
> NTIA criteria.  I have tried to raise an innocuous addition as a 
> footnote to deal with the concern in a neutral fashion.  I have 
> highlighted it in red to facilitate ease of comment.  Those topics 
> highlighted in yellow are possible places where other more specific work 
> may supersede this language and be replaced by a cross reference.  There 
> is one margin question as well.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150926/e0fa3470/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Sat Sep 26 16:13:25 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 16:13:25 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] comment summary on RZM issues
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589FC2A7DFC8F4F5D1EE4A0AC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>


22 of the submissions made specific comments about the root zone maintainer (RZM) role. Many noted that it is difficult to assess the ICG proposal's impact on the security and stability of the DNS root without knowing how the Verisign cooperative agreement and the roles of Verisign and the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) will be modified. Most of the submissions that addressed the RZM issue felt that the ICANN-Verisign proposal left some questions unanswered and/or raised concerns about the transparency and trustworthiness of the transition process. They asked for consultation with the global multistakeholder community before any major structural changes were made in the roles of the IFO and RZM. This was a consistent theme among business groups and civil society organizations. A subset of commenters asked that the transition remain committed to the organizational separation of the IFO and RZM duties. Other comments asked for the ICANN-Verisign proposal to be reviewed by the SSAC or by the CWG-stewardship itself to confirm that it meets their requirements.


Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150926/34a35b64/attachment.html>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Sun Sep 27 21:47:13 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:47:13 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
 Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <00cf01d0f7b8$36d1b2e0$a47518a0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00c101d0f7b7$07752d20$165f8760$@icgsec.asia>
	<00cf01d0f7b8$36d1b2e0$a47518a0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B42840@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute.  My apologies to colleagues - I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.

I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached word document:  Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):

Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction.  Of these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction.  Five agreed that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.

The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction.  This reflected the discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction.  The ICG also noted that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition of stewardship - given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability - would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in the transition.

Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified ICANN's jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post transition).  It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability and stability.  It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options.  The ICG agrees that the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this work.

I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but would welcome colleagues' comments.

Best


Martin

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Hi Martin,

Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC.

M6: 7    Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)

The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT)  - you may either upload to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150927/5a020996/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Jurisdiction.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38431 bytes
Desc: Jurisdiction.docx
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150927/5a020996/attachment.docx>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Sun Sep 27 23:48:18 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 19:48:18 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg]
 =?utf-8?q?Reminder=3A_Action_Items_relating_to_Part?=
 =?utf-8?q?_0_due_by_Sunday_27_Sept_at_23=3A59_UTC?=
Message-ID: <20150927234810.2870D1C1436@smtp.notifymdm.com>

Did we also discuss the concept that the comments also showed that there was confusion related to the implications of jurisdiction with a couple highlighting only concern for potential future legislative action...

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

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

From: Martin Boyle [Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
Received: Sunday, 27 Sep 2015, 5:47PM
To: Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
CC: admin at icgsec.asia [admin at icgsec.asia]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute.  My apologies to colleagues - I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.

I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached word document:  Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):

Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction.  Of these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction.  Five agreed that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.

The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction.  This reflected the discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction.  The ICG also noted that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition of stewardship - given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability - would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in the transition.

Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified ICANN's jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post transition).  It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability and stability.  It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options.  The ICG agrees that the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this work.

I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but would welcome colleagues' comments.

Best


Martin

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Hi Martin,

Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC.

M6: 7    Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)

The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT)  - you may either upload to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer



From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Mon Sep 28 02:59:11 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:59:11 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory
In-Reply-To: <02d701d0f6f4$3002fe20$9008fa60$@icgsec.asia>
References: <02d701d0f6f4$3002fe20$9008fa60$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <FF6FA32B-284F-408B-AA52-A927FFB7E2B6@LStAmour.org>

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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG - Action Item Inventory - Draft.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 37497 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150927/1367854f/attachment.xlsx>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Mon Sep 28 08:41:59 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 08:41:59 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
 Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <20150927234810.2870D1C1436@smtp.notifymdm.com>
References: <20150927234810.2870D1C1436@smtp.notifymdm.com>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B42F90@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

I couldn't find the transcript for the meeting, so I'm not sure how much of this memory of corridor discussions and how much was actually said around the table.  But you are right, there was certainly confusion between:

* Jurisdiction as political power (so the six that opposed the proposal for transfer away from the USG and the six who opposed because it had not been moved out of US jurisdiction are predominantly in this camp);
* Jurisdiction as the legal framework on which accountability and relationships are based (which is the basis for most of the other inputs);  and
* The cross-over where the country of jurisdiction can be a threat to other countries by passing legislation that has a wider impact, so favouring the country of jurisdiction.  A number of comments identified this risk.

(I'm sure there is a more eloquent way of putting this!)

So I'm sure that additional text could be useful.  I'd need to re-read to identify exactly how many highlighted concerns on this last bullet.

Best

Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
Sent: 28 September 2015 00:48
To: jen at icgsec.asia; internal-cg at ianacg.org; Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Did we also discuss the concept that the comments also showed that there was confusion related to the implications of jurisdiction with a couple highlighting only concern for potential future legislative action...

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

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

From: Martin Boyle [Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
Received: Sunday, 27 Sep 2015, 5:47PM
To: Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
CC: admin at icgsec.asia [admin at icgsec.asia]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute.  My apologies to colleagues - I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.

I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached word document:  Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):

Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction.  Of these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction.  Five agreed that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.

The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction.  This reflected the discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction.  The ICG also noted that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition of stewardship - given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability - would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in the transition.

Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified ICANN's jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post transition).  It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability and stability.  It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options.  The ICG agrees that the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this work.

I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but would welcome colleagues' comments.

Best


Martin

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Hi Martin,

Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC.

M6: 7    Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)

The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT)  - you may either upload to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer



From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Mon Sep 28 13:41:35 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:41:35 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
In-Reply-To: <5606C128.7030609@oracle.com>
References: <56015C55.8010301@oracle.com> <5605888C.7070400@oracle.com>
	<010e01d0f7bb$b181c040$148540c0$@icgsec.asia>
	<DM2PR07MB5891A111E968688B4A8C6D0AC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<5606C128.7030609@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B438C4@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

I would just note that the CSC is not supposed to be a voting body, but might if it escalated to the ccNSO and GNSO for possible further escalation.  That step suggests to me that it will need to work through consensus, but then its role should be focussed on the technical performance, so the decision will be about whether the IANA functions operator will be able to put [whatever mess] right.

That's not to belittle the chance of voting, but it would be inappropriate to prevent a ccTLD being represented because it was government owned or controlled.  I think the answer to the "concern" would be that even two government-controlled ccTLDs would not have an absolute majority in and decision by vote.

I cannot remember the discussion Joe alludes to:  I think I might have questioned this, if someone had:  the thing about the CSC is that it should seek to resolve performance issues with the PTI (or a subsequent IANA functions operator) "to the PTI Board and further if necessary."  In itself it can only refer performance issues that are not being resolved to the ccNSO & GNSO "for consideration."  It would be for the ccNSO and GNSO to decide whether the issue were serious enough to refer to a special IFR.

So I'm fine with Milton's re-wording.

Martin

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: 26 September 2015 17:01
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal

Milton:

I am fine with the suggestion, if others are OK.. Recall that they yellow was to see if there was a needed cross reference to other sections that might address the issue more fully.  I recall that a question had been raised at the meeting, perhaps by Kavouss, questioning the assertion related to voting in the CSC being a real issue due to issues being resolved in parallel workstreams...

Joe
On 9/26/2015 11:14 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Joe,

I would like to suggest some improvements in  the paragraph on the NTIA criterion pertaining to governments.

You wrote:

A range of comments addressed the role of governments.  Among the most relevant: a couple felt that government roles would be too constrained and they would not be able to fulfill all of the criteria of the Tunis Agenda; a couple also highlighted a concern for the possible role future legislation by US government based on concern of jurisdiction; and more commentators focused on what they perceived to be a possible enhanced voting role for the GAC and concerns of governments as owners of ccTLDs in the CSC.  The proposal cannot address all hypothetical situations and has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements.  The ICG sees no further action as appropriate at this point, but notes the concerns raised.


I would propose to replace this paragraph with the following statement:

The overwhelming majority of comments agreed that the proposal does not replace NTIA stewardship with a government-led or intergovernmental solution. Some comments felt that governmental roles would be too constrained; others felt that the role of the U.S. government was still too strong due to the retention of U.S. jurisdiction. A few other commentators expressed concerns about the role of government-controlled ccTLDs in the CSC. The ICG notes the concerns raised, but believes that the proposal has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements, and thus sees no further action as needed.

A small number of comments expressed concern about the strengthening of the GAC in the new accountability arrangements. The ICG notes that insofar as they justify changes in the proposal, these comments are best addressed by the CCWG on enhanced accountability.


From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:58 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal

FYI please see the email from Joe below with the attached proposed text.

From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:47 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>
Subject: Fwd: Please find attached revised summary proposal


FYI

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:

Please find attached revised summary proposal

Date:

Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:49:09 -0400

From:

joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com><mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>

Organization:

Oracle Corporation

To:

internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> <internal-cg at icann.org><mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>



Please note that I found no cross reference in our proposal to the role

of government as multistakeholder participant that would address the

concern raised that such participation may bee seen as at odds with the

NTIA criteria.  I have tried to raise an innocuous addition as a

footnote to deal with the concern in a neutral fashion.  I have

highlighted it in red to facilitate ease of comment.  Those topics

highlighted in yellow are possible places where other more specific work

may supersede this language and be replaced by a cross reference.  There

is one margin question as well.



Thanks.








_______________________________________________

Internal-cg mailing list

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150928/f10b02d1/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Mon Sep 28 14:06:35 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:06:35 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B438C4@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <56015C55.8010301@oracle.com> <5605888C.7070400@oracle.com>
	<010e01d0f7bb$b181c040$148540c0$@icgsec.asia>
	<DM2PR07MB5891A111E968688B4A8C6D0AC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<5606C128.7030609@oracle.com>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B438C4@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <5609496B.8000206@oracle.com>

My recollection of the comment was a statement that the voting potential 
might be dependent on some developments related to parallel 
work-streams.  Not being in those, I can't be specific as to details.  
Absent a specific objection from anyone who may know better we'll take 
the Milton's comments on board as suggested; unless your second 
paragraph suggests a need for a change as to tone related to the 
likelihood  of government ccTLD voting impacting outcome ?

Joe

On 9/28/2015 9:41 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
>
> I would just note that the CSC is not supposed to be a voting body, 
> but might if it escalated to the ccNSO and GNSO for possible further 
> escalation.  That step suggests to me that it will need to work 
> through consensus, but then its role should be focussed on the 
> technical performance, so the decision will be about whether the IANA 
> functions operator will be able to put [whatever mess] right.
>
> That’s not to belittle the chance of voting, but it would be 
> inappropriate to prevent a ccTLD being represented because it was 
> government owned or controlled.  I think the answer to the “concern” 
> would be that even two government-controlled ccTLDs would not have an 
> absolute majority in and decision by vote.
>
> I cannot remember the discussion Joe alludes to:  I think I might have 
> questioned this, if someone had:  the thing about the CSC is that it 
> should seek to resolve performance issues with the PTI (or a 
> subsequent IANA functions operator) “to the PTI Board and further if 
> necessary.”  In itself it can only refer performance issues that are 
> not being resolved to the ccNSO & GNSO “for consideration.”  It would 
> be for the ccNSO and GNSO to decide whether the issue were serious 
> enough to refer to a special IFR.
>
> So I’m fine with Milton’s re-wording.
>
> Martin
>
> *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf 
> Of *joseph alhadeff
> *Sent:* 26 September 2015 17:01
> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary 
> proposal
>
> Milton:
>
> I am fine with the suggestion, if others are OK.. Recall that they 
> yellow was to see if there was a needed cross reference to other 
> sections that might address the issue more fully.  I recall that a 
> question had been raised at the meeting, perhaps by Kavouss, 
> questioning the assertion related to voting in the CSC being a real 
> issue due to issues being resolved in parallel workstreams...
>
> Joe
>
> On 9/26/2015 11:14 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>     Joe,
>
>     I would like to suggest some improvements in  the paragraph on the
>     NTIA criterion pertaining to governments.
>
>     You wrote:
>
>     A range of comments addressed the role of governments.  Among the
>     most relevant: a couple felt that government roles would be too
>     constrained and they would not be able to fulfill all of the
>     criteria of the Tunis Agenda; a couple also highlighted a concern
>     for the possible role future legislation by US government based on
>     concern of jurisdiction; and more commentators focused on what
>     they perceived to be a possible enhanced voting role for the GAC
>     and concerns of governments as owners of ccTLDs in the CSC.  The
>     proposal cannot address all hypothetical situations and has relied
>     on the community processes to find the right balance across the
>     stakeholder equities and operational requirements.  The ICG sees
>     no further action as appropriate at this point, but notes the
>     concerns raised.
>
>     I would propose to replace this paragraph with the following
>     statement:
>
>     The overwhelming majority of comments agreed that the proposal
>     does not replace NTIA stewardship with a government-led or
>     intergovernmental solution. Some comments felt that governmental
>     roles would be too constrained; others felt that the role of the
>     U.S. government was still too strong due to the retention of U.S.
>     jurisdiction. A few other commentators expressed concerns about
>     the role of government-controlled ccTLDs in the CSC. The ICG notes
>     the concerns raised, but believes that the proposal has relied on
>     the community processes to find the right balance across the
>     stakeholder equities and operational requirements, and thus sees
>     no further action as needed.
>
>     A small number of comments expressed concern about the
>     strengthening of the GAC in the new accountability arrangements.
>     The ICG notes that insofar as they justify changes in the
>     proposal, these comments are best addressed by the CCWG on
>     enhanced accountability.
>
>     *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On
>     Behalf Of *Jennifer Chung
>     *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 1:58 PM
>     *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>     *Subject:* [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary
>     proposal
>
>     FYI please see the email from Joe below with the attached proposed
>     text.
>
>     *From:*joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
>     *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 1:47 PM
>     *To:* Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>
>     *Subject:* Fwd: Please find attached revised summary proposal
>
>     FYI
>
>     -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
>     *Subject: *
>
>     	
>
>     Please find attached revised summary proposal
>
>     *Date: *
>
>     	
>
>     Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:49:09 -0400
>
>     *From: *
>
>     	
>
>     joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>     <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>
>     *Organization: *
>
>     	
>
>     Oracle Corporation
>
>     *To: *
>
>     	
>
>     internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>
>     <internal-cg at icann.org> <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>
>
>     Please note that I found no cross reference in our proposal to the role
>
>     of government as multistakeholder participant that would address the
>
>     concern raised that such participation may bee seen as at odds with the
>
>     NTIA criteria.  I have tried to raise an innocuous addition as a
>
>     footnote to deal with the concern in a neutral fashion.  I have
>
>     highlighted it in red to facilitate ease of comment.  Those topics
>
>     highlighted in yellow are possible places where other more specific work
>
>     may supersede this language and be replaced by a cross reference.  There
>
>     is one margin question as well.
>
>       
>
>     Thanks.
>
>       
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Internal-cg mailing list
>
>     Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>
>     http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150928/99c4693d/attachment.html>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Mon Sep 28 14:40:10 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:40:10 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
In-Reply-To: <5609496B.8000206@oracle.com>
References: <56015C55.8010301@oracle.com> <5605888C.7070400@oracle.com>
	<010e01d0f7bb$b181c040$148540c0$@icgsec.asia>
	<DM2PR07MB5891A111E968688B4A8C6D0AC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<5606C128.7030609@oracle.com>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B438C4@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<5609496B.8000206@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B43AC7@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

On the contrary.  We need to be aware of the issues and the questions, but I don't want to go into this level of detail in our final proposal.

From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
Sent: 28 September 2015 15:07
To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal

My recollection of the comment was a statement that the voting potential might be dependent on some developments related to parallel work-streams.  Not being in those, I can't be specific as to details.  Absent a specific objection from anyone who may know better we'll take the Milton's comments on board as suggested; unless your second paragraph suggests a need for a change as to tone related to the likelihood  of government ccTLD voting impacting outcome ?

Joe
On 9/28/2015 9:41 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
I would just note that the CSC is not supposed to be a voting body, but might if it escalated to the ccNSO and GNSO for possible further escalation.  That step suggests to me that it will need to work through consensus, but then its role should be focussed on the technical performance, so the decision will be about whether the IANA functions operator will be able to put [whatever mess] right.

That's not to belittle the chance of voting, but it would be inappropriate to prevent a ccTLD being represented because it was government owned or controlled.  I think the answer to the "concern" would be that even two government-controlled ccTLDs would not have an absolute majority in and decision by vote.

I cannot remember the discussion Joe alludes to:  I think I might have questioned this, if someone had:  the thing about the CSC is that it should seek to resolve performance issues with the PTI (or a subsequent IANA functions operator) "to the PTI Board and further if necessary."  In itself it can only refer performance issues that are not being resolved to the ccNSO & GNSO "for consideration."  It would be for the ccNSO and GNSO to decide whether the issue were serious enough to refer to a special IFR.

So I'm fine with Milton's re-wording.

Martin

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: 26 September 2015 17:01
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal

Milton:

I am fine with the suggestion, if others are OK.. Recall that they yellow was to see if there was a needed cross reference to other sections that might address the issue more fully.  I recall that a question had been raised at the meeting, perhaps by Kavouss, questioning the assertion related to voting in the CSC being a real issue due to issues being resolved in parallel workstreams...

Joe
On 9/26/2015 11:14 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Joe,

I would like to suggest some improvements in  the paragraph on the NTIA criterion pertaining to governments.

You wrote:

A range of comments addressed the role of governments.  Among the most relevant: a couple felt that government roles would be too constrained and they would not be able to fulfill all of the criteria of the Tunis Agenda; a couple also highlighted a concern for the possible role future legislation by US government based on concern of jurisdiction; and more commentators focused on what they perceived to be a possible enhanced voting role for the GAC and concerns of governments as owners of ccTLDs in the CSC.  The proposal cannot address all hypothetical situations and has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements.  The ICG sees no further action as appropriate at this point, but notes the concerns raised.


I would propose to replace this paragraph with the following statement:

The overwhelming majority of comments agreed that the proposal does not replace NTIA stewardship with a government-led or intergovernmental solution. Some comments felt that governmental roles would be too constrained; others felt that the role of the U.S. government was still too strong due to the retention of U.S. jurisdiction. A few other commentators expressed concerns about the role of government-controlled ccTLDs in the CSC. The ICG notes the concerns raised, but believes that the proposal has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements, and thus sees no further action as needed.

A small number of comments expressed concern about the strengthening of the GAC in the new accountability arrangements. The ICG notes that insofar as they justify changes in the proposal, these comments are best addressed by the CCWG on enhanced accountability.


From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:58 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal

FYI please see the email from Joe below with the attached proposed text.

From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:47 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>
Subject: Fwd: Please find attached revised summary proposal


FYI

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:

Please find attached revised summary proposal

Date:

Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:49:09 -0400

From:

joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com><mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>

Organization:

Oracle Corporation

To:

internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> <internal-cg at icann.org><mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>



Please note that I found no cross reference in our proposal to the role

of government as multistakeholder participant that would address the

concern raised that such participation may bee seen as at odds with the

NTIA criteria.  I have tried to raise an innocuous addition as a

footnote to deal with the concern in a neutral fashion.  I have

highlighted it in red to facilitate ease of comment.  Those topics

highlighted in yellow are possible places where other more specific work

may supersede this language and be replaced by a cross reference.  There

is one margin question as well.



Thanks.









_______________________________________________

Internal-cg mailing list

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150928/145937ff/attachment.html>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Mon Sep 28 14:41:22 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:41:22 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
 Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B42840@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <00c101d0f7b7$07752d20$165f8760$@icgsec.asia>
	<00cf01d0f7b8$36d1b2e0$a47518a0$@icgsec.asia>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B42840@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <BLUPR07MB578AA1EE40A9474030D862DAC4F0@BLUPR07MB578.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

I think your last paragraph does an excellent job of summarizing the takeaway message on jurisdiction.
There are some grammatical glitches in the first two paragraphs which I can point out when I have more time

--MM

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:47 PM
To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute.  My apologies to colleagues - I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.

I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached word document:  Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):

Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction.  Of these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction.  Five agreed that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.

The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction.  This reflected the discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction.  The ICG also noted that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition of stewardship - given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability - would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in the transition.

Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified ICANN's jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post transition).  It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability and stability.  It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options.  The ICG agrees that the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this work.

I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but would welcome colleagues' comments.

Best


Martin

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia<mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>
Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Hi Martin,

Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC.

M6: 7    Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)

The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT)  - you may either upload to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150928/835bd154/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Mon Sep 28 15:49:27 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:49:27 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
	Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B42840@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <00c101d0f7b7$07752d20$165f8760$@icgsec.asia>
	<00cf01d0f7b8$36d1b2e0$a47518a0$@icgsec.asia>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B42840@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <000001d0fa05$43c9e630$cb5db290$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Martin and All,

 

This document is now in the Part 0 edits subfolder for your review and
reference:

 

Dropbox subfolder short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT 

Document short link (renamed as "Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1.docx") :
http://icgsec.asia/1NXmhYD 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:47 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept
at 23:59 UTC

 

Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute.  My apologies
to colleagues - I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.

 

I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached
word document:  Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):

 

Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction.  Of
these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US
Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and
IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction.  Five agreed
that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction
should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications
of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported
maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.

 

The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments
opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction.  This reflected the
discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that
significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the
implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction.  The ICG also noted
that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of
transition of stewardship - given the implications on ICANN and PTI
accountability - would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an
additional risk in the transition.

 

Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified
ICANN's jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post
transition).  It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction
before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in
particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking
predictability and stability.  It recognises that jurisdiction remains an
important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear
assessment of the implications of different options.  The ICG agrees that
the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of
continuing this work.

 

I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning,
but would welcome colleagues' comments.

 

Best

 

 

Martin

 

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> 
Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at
23:59 UTC

 

Hi Martin,

 

Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the
F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC.


 

M6: 7    Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns
received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)

 

The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0
edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT)  - you may either upload to
this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150928/46be4796/attachment.html>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Mon Sep 28 17:06:43 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:06:43 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
 Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <000001d0fa05$43c9e630$cb5db290$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00c101d0f7b7$07752d20$165f8760$@icgsec.asia>
	<00cf01d0f7b8$36d1b2e0$a47518a0$@icgsec.asia>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B42840@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<000001d0fa05$43c9e630$cb5db290$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B4431D@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Following Milton's comment about grammar (writing documents close to midnight at the end of a weekend is never a good idea!), I had a look at the text and have amended to try to correct the text and make it easier to understand.  I've now posted (in mark-up) a v1.1 as Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1-1.docx.

Sorry for this.

Best

Martin

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: 28 September 2015 16:49
To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Dear Martin and All,

This document is now in the Part 0 edits subfolder for your review and reference:

Dropbox subfolder short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT
Document short link (renamed as "Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1.docx") : http://icgsec.asia/1NXmhYD

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:47 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia<mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>
Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute.  My apologies to colleagues - I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.

I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached word document:  Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):

Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction.  Of these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction.  Five agreed that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.

The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction.  This reflected the discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction.  The ICG also noted that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition of stewardship - given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability - would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in the transition.

Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified ICANN's jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post transition).  It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability and stability.  It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options.  The ICG agrees that the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this work.

I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but would welcome colleagues' comments.

Best


Martin

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia<mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>
Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Hi Martin,

Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC.

M6: 7    Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)

The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT)  - you may either upload to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150928/0d7d7f0b/attachment.html>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Tue Sep 29 10:10:44 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:10:44 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
 Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B4431D@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <6241841.364.1443521440181.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Martin & All,

thanks Martin for those improvements. However, in the sentence "It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options", the expression "but complex" seems to suggest that jurisdiction, more than other aspects, might jeopardize Transition. We know that the whole exercise is delicate, and that many of its components are complex.

I would therefore request that the sentence be "It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options".

Thank you.
Jean-Jacques.





   

----- Mail original -----
De: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
À: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>, internal-cg at ianacg.org
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Envoyé: Lundi 28 Septembre 2015 19:06:43
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC





Following Milton’s comment about grammar (writing documents close to midnight at the end of a weekend is never a good idea!), I had a look at the text and have amended to try to correct the text and make it easier to understand. I’ve now posted (in mark-up) a v1.1 as Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1-1.docx. 



Sorry for this. 



Best 



Martin 





From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: 28 September 2015 16:49 
To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC 



Dear Martin and All, 



This document is now in the Part 0 edits subfolder for your review and reference: 



Dropbox subfolder short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT 

Document short link (renamed as “Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1.docx”) : http://icgsec.asia/1NXmhYD 



Please let me know if you have any questions. 



Best Regards, 



Jennifer 





From: Martin Boyle [ mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk ] 
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:47 PM 
To: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec..asia >; internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC 



Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute. My apologies to colleagues – I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night. 



I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached word document: Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?): 



Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction. Of these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction. Five agreed that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged. 



The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction. This reflected the discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction. The ICG also noted that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition of stewardship – given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability – would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in the transition. 



Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified ICANN’s jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post transition). It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability and stability. It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options. The ICG agrees that the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this work. 



I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but would welcome colleagues’ comments. 



Best 





Martin 





From: Jennifer Chung [ mailto:jen at icgsec.asia ] 
Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33 
To: Martin Boyle 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC 



Hi Martin, 



Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC. 



M6: 7 Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3) 



The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT ) – you may either upload to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well. 



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 kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Tue Sep 29 10:25:46 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:25:46 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
 Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <6241841.364.1443521440181.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B4431D@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<6241841.364.1443521440181.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-LafYs_Emj_0S4unV5iOqBUTEdh9CXaKctTO8TPOCP+zQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
I am sorry to be late.
I was in the Plane during the deadline to comment
I fully agree with Martin to say
*"Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified
ICANN’s jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post
transition). It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction
before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in
particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking
predictability and stability. It recognises that jurisdiction remains an
important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear
assessment of the implications of different options. The ICG agrees that
the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of
continuing this work." *
Regards
Kavouss


2015-09-29 12:10 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>:

> Martin & All,
>
> thanks Martin for those improvements. However, in the sentence "It
> recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that
> needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of
> different options", the expression "but complex" seems to suggest that
> jurisdiction, more than other aspects, might jeopardize Transition. We know
> that the whole exercise is delicate, and that many of its components are
> complex.
>
> I would therefore request that the sentence be "It recognises that
> jurisdiction remains an important issue that needs to be addressed based on
> a clear assessment of the implications of different options".
>
> Thank you.
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
> À: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>, internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Envoyé: Lundi 28 Septembre 2015 19:06:43
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
> Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
>
>
>
>
>
> Following Milton’s comment about grammar (writing documents close to
> midnight at the end of a weekend is never a good idea!), I had a look at
> the text and have amended to try to correct the text and make it easier to
> understand. I’ve now posted (in mark-up) a v1.1 as
> Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1-1.docx.
>
>
>
> Sorry for this.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
> Sent: 28 September 2015 16:49
> To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27
> Sept at 23:59 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear Martin and All,
>
>
>
> This document is now in the Part 0 edits subfolder for your review and
> reference:
>
>
>
> Dropbox subfolder short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT
>
> Document short link (renamed as “Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1.docx”) :
> http://icgsec.asia/1NXmhYD
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Martin Boyle [ mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk ]
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:47 PM
> To: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec..asia >; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27
> Sept at 23:59 UTC
>
>
>
> Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute. My apologies
> to colleagues – I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.
>
>
>
> I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the
> attached word document: Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):
>
>
>
> Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction. Of
> these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US
> Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and
> IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction. Five agreed
> that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction
> should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the
> implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one
> supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.
>
>
>
> The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments
> opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction. This reflected the
> discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that
> significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the
> implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction. The ICG also noted
> that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of
> transition of stewardship – given the implications on ICANN and PTI
> accountability – would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an
> additional risk in the transition.
>
>
>
> Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified
> ICANN’s jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post
> transition). It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction
> before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in
> particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking
> predictability and stability. It recognises that jurisdiction remains an
> important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear
> assessment of the implications of different options. The ICG agrees that
> the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of
> continuing this work.
>
>
>
> I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday
> morning, but would welcome colleagues’ comments.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jennifer Chung [ mailto:jen at icgsec.asia ]
> Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
> To: Martin Boyle
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept
> at 23:59 UTC
>
>
>
> Hi Martin,
>
>
>
> Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the
> F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC.
>
>
>
> M6: 7 Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns
> received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)
>
>
>
> The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0
> edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT ) – you may either upload
> to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.
>
>
>
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150929/62936000/attachment.html>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Tue Sep 29 11:35:40 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:35:40 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
 Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <6241841.364.1443521440181.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B4431D@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<6241841.364.1443521440181.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B4595C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

I'm not sure I understand your point, Jean-Jacques.  

The sentence is not intended to imply that the complexity of the issue of jurisdiction would jeopardise transition, but simply to recognise that it is not a simple and open choice.  So for example, a change of jurisdiction could (almost certainly will) have implications for the whole framework of ICANN accountability that CCWG-Accountability has been discussing.  The phrase was intended to help explain why the issue of jurisdiction had become a WS2 issue.

That said, I'm neutral on this (in the previous paragraph it says, "significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction"), so would be open to the views of others, and in particular to comments from Kavouss and Keith Drazek who've been the CCWG liaisons for us.

Best

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] 
Sent: 29 September 2015 11:11
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia; Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Martin & All,

thanks Martin for those improvements. However, in the sentence "It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options", the expression "but complex" seems to suggest that jurisdiction, more than other aspects, might jeopardize Transition. We know that the whole exercise is delicate, and that many of its components are complex.

I would therefore request that the sentence be "It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options".

Thank you.
Jean-Jacques.





   

----- Mail original -----
De: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
À: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>, internal-cg at ianacg.org
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Envoyé: Lundi 28 Septembre 2015 19:06:43
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC





Following Milton’s comment about grammar (writing documents close to midnight at the end of a weekend is never a good idea!), I had a look at the text and have amended to try to correct the text and make it easier to understand. I’ve now posted (in mark-up) a v1.1 as Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1-1.docx. 



Sorry for this. 



Best 



Martin 





From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: 28 September 2015 16:49 
To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC 



Dear Martin and All, 



This document is now in the Part 0 edits subfolder for your review and reference: 



Dropbox subfolder short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT 

Document short link (renamed as “Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1.docx”) : http://icgsec.asia/1NXmhYD 



Please let me know if you have any questions. 



Best Regards, 



Jennifer 





From: Martin Boyle [ mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk ] 
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:47 PM 
To: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec..asia >; internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC 



Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute. My apologies to colleagues – I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night. 



I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached word document: Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?): 



Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction. Of these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction. Five agreed that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged. 



The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction. This reflected the discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction. The ICG also noted that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition of stewardship – given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability – would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in the transition. 



Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified ICANN’s jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post transition). It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability and stability. It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options. The ICG agrees that the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this work. 



I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but would welcome colleagues’ comments. 



Best 





Martin 





From: Jennifer Chung [ mailto:jen at icgsec.asia ] 
Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33 
To: Martin Boyle 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC 



Hi Martin, 



Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC. 



M6: 7 Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3) 



The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT ) – you may either upload to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well. 



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 jjs at dyalog.net  Tue Sep 29 12:24:45 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:24:45 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
 Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B4595C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <21991194.633.1443529483791.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Thank you Martin.

My point was that underlining the complexity of jurisdiction simply burdened it in such a way that it became a special issue. As you remarked quite rightly, the previous paragraph is explicit enough, so we should leave it at that. That is why I request that "but complex" be deleted.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.








----- Mail original -----
De: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia, "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>, internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mardi 29 Septembre 2015 13:35:40
Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

I'm not sure I understand your point, Jean-Jacques.  

The sentence is not intended to imply that the complexity of the issue of jurisdiction would jeopardise transition, but simply to recognise that it is not a simple and open choice.  So for example, a change of jurisdiction could (almost certainly will) have implications for the whole framework of ICANN accountability that CCWG-Accountability has been discussing.  The phrase was intended to help explain why the issue of jurisdiction had become a WS2 issue.

That said, I'm neutral on this (in the previous paragraph it says, "significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction"), so would be open to the views of others, and in particular to comments from Kavouss and Keith Drazek who've been the CCWG liaisons for us.

Best

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] 
Sent: 29 September 2015 11:11
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia; Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Martin & All,

thanks Martin for those improvements. However, in the sentence "It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options", the expression "but complex" seems to suggest that jurisdiction, more than other aspects, might jeopardize Transition. We know that the whole exercise is delicate, and that many of its components are complex.

I would therefore request that the sentence be "It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options".

Thank you.
Jean-Jacques.





   

----- Mail original -----
De: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
À: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>, internal-cg at ianacg.org
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Envoyé: Lundi 28 Septembre 2015 19:06:43
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC





Following Milton’s comment about grammar (writing documents close to midnight at the end of a weekend is never a good idea!), I had a look at the text and have amended to try to correct the text and make it easier to understand. I’ve now posted (in mark-up) a v1.1 as Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1-1.docx. 



Sorry for this. 



Best 



Martin 





From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: 28 September 2015 16:49 
To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC 



Dear Martin and All, 



This document is now in the Part 0 edits subfolder for your review and reference: 



Dropbox subfolder short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT 

Document short link (renamed as “Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1.docx”) : http://icgsec.asia/1NXmhYD 



Please let me know if you have any questions. 



Best Regards, 



Jennifer 





From: Martin Boyle [ mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk ] 
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:47 PM 
To: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec..asia >; internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC 



Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute. My apologies to colleagues – I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night. 



I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached word document: Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?): 



Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction. Of these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction. Five agreed that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged. 



The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction. This reflected the discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction. The ICG also noted that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition of stewardship – given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability – would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in the transition. 



Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified ICANN’s jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post transition). It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability and stability. It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options. The ICG agrees that the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this work. 



I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but would welcome colleagues’ comments. 



Best 





Martin 





From: Jennifer Chung [ mailto:jen at icgsec.asia ] 
Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33 
To: Martin Boyle 
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia 
Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC 



Hi Martin, 



Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC. 



M6: 7 Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3) 



The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT ) – you may either upload to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well. 



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 milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Tue Sep 29 14:45:22 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:45:22 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
 Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <21991194.633.1443529483791.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B4595C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<21991194.633.1443529483791.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB58953ED09770B2C3983DA4BAC4E0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

I agree with Jean-Jacques. 
We don't need the phrase "but complex" and it does sound like we are being weaselly a bit. 
No issues raised by deleting it, less is more. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 8:25 AM
> To: Martin Boyle
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
> Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
> 
> Thank you Martin.
> 
> My point was that underlining the complexity of jurisdiction simply burdened
> it in such a way that it became a special issue. As you remarked quite rightly,
> the previous paragraph is explicit enough, so we should leave it at that. That
> is why I request that "but complex" be deleted.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia, "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>, internal-
> cg at ianacg.org
> Envoyé: Mardi 29 Septembre 2015 13:35:40
> Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
> Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your point, Jean-Jacques.
> 
> The sentence is not intended to imply that the complexity of the issue of
> jurisdiction would jeopardise transition, but simply to recognise that it is not a
> simple and open choice.  So for example, a change of jurisdiction could
> (almost certainly will) have implications for the whole framework of ICANN
> accountability that CCWG-Accountability has been discussing.  The phrase
> was intended to help explain why the issue of jurisdiction had become a WS2
> issue.
> 
> That said, I'm neutral on this (in the previous paragraph it says, "significant
> and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications
> and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction"), so would be open to the views of
> others, and in particular to comments from Kavouss and Keith Drazek who've
> been the CCWG liaisons for us.
> 
> Best
> 
> Martin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net]
> Sent: 29 September 2015 11:11
> To: Martin Boyle
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia; Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
> Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
> 
> Martin & All,
> 
> thanks Martin for those improvements. However, in the sentence "It
> recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that
> needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of
> different options", the expression "but complex" seems to suggest that
> jurisdiction, more than other aspects, might jeopardize Transition. We know
> that the whole exercise is delicate, and that many of its components are
> complex.
> 
> I would therefore request that the sentence be "It recognises that
> jurisdiction remains an important issue that needs to be addressed based on
> a clear assessment of the implications of different options".
> 
> Thank you.
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
> À: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>, internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Envoyé: Lundi 28 Septembre 2015 19:06:43
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
> Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following Milton’s comment about grammar (writing documents close to
> midnight at the end of a weekend is never a good idea!), I had a look at the
> text and have amended to try to correct the text and make it easier to
> understand. I’ve now posted (in mark-up) a v1.1 as Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-
> MB-v1-1.docx.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for this.
> 
> 
> 
> Best
> 
> 
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
> Sent: 28 September 2015 16:49
> To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept
> at 23:59 UTC
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Martin and All,
> 
> 
> 
> This document is now in the Part 0 edits subfolder for your review and
> reference:
> 
> 
> 
> Dropbox subfolder short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT
> 
> Document short link (renamed as “Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1.docx”) :
> http://icgsec.asia/1NXmhYD
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Jennifer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Martin Boyle [ mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk ]
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:47 PM
> To: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec..asia >; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept
> at 23:59 UTC
> 
> 
> 
> Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute. My apologies to
> colleagues – I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached
> word document: Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):
> 
> 
> 
> Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction. Of these,
> six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US
> Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN
> and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction. Five agreed
> that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction
> should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications
> of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported
> maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.
> 
> 
> 
> The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments
> opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction. This reflected the
> discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that
> significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the
> implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction. The ICG also noted that
> the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition
> of stewardship – given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability –
> would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in
> the transition.
> 
> 
> 
> Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified
> ICANN’s jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post
> transition). It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before
> or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in
> accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability
> and stability. It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but
> complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of
> the implications of different options. The ICG agrees that the approach
> identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this
> work.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but
> would welcome colleagues’ comments.
> 
> 
> 
> Best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jennifer Chung [ mailto:jen at icgsec.asia ]
> Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
> To: Martin Boyle
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at
> 23:59 UTC
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> 
> 
> Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F
> and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC.
> 
> 
> 
> M6: 7 Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns
> received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)
> 
> 
> 
> The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits
> (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT ) – you may either upload to this
> subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 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 alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 30 03:55:06 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:55:06 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 language for RZM
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589EB8C7FE7AEF53E3206FAAC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR07MB589EB8C7FE7AEF53E3206FAAC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <734DE367-61A0-4544-876B-7B22AF28004F@cooperw.in>

Thanks Milton. I think this is good. I have some specific comments below. One over-arching question: how do you think this text fits together with the text currently in paragraph 55 of the proposal? Would we keep both, combine them somehow, or replace paragraph 55 with the text below? I quite like the detail in paragraph 55 and the references to the CWG proposal, so perhaps some version of it could remain by combining it with your second paragraph below and editing the combined paragraph.

> On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> I thought I had sent this out before but now I am not sure. So to be safe I send it now (again?)
>  
> The ICG recognizes that a complete and finalized transition requires more than implementing its own proposal. It also requires revising the relationship between the current Root Zone Maintainer (Verisign), Root Zone Administrator (the U.S. Commerce Department) and IANA functions operator (ICANN). Insofar as those revisions require amendments to (or elimination of) the cooperative agreement between the NTIA and Verisign, the process will be controlled by the NTIA, not the ICG. This “related and parallel transition,” as the NTIA described it in its March 2014 announcement, involves interactions between NTIA, ICANN and Verisign that are outside of the ICG process. Nevertheless, the NTIA itself has recognized that “aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement,” and thus the results of that process must be consistent with the ICG proposal’s approach to the IANA Functions.
>  
> So far the NTIA process seems to have built upon the output of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. The names CWG proposed elimination of the NTIA’s root zone change authorization function and described a set of guidelines and principles regarding post-transition root zone administration. To the ICG, the post-transition RZM architecture proposed in an NTIA-solicited document by ICANN and Verisign does not seem to be inconsistent with those guidelines and principles. 

I think we should cite the document. Also, I would suggest “seems to be consistent” rather than the double negative.

>  
> In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholder groups expressed concern about the transparency of the

I would suggest “stakeholders” rather than “stakeholder groups.”

Alissa

> 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:
> ·        Asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer;
> ·        Asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements
> 
> <Additional text would depend on the result of these inquiries. E.g., if CWG replies to our first question saying, “yes, the second principle implies that different organizations should be providing IFO and RZM, and before that changes there should be a consultation that obtains consensus” then we can say to the NTIA: “make sure any revisions in the Verisign cooperative agreement/ICANN arrangements you approve are not inconsistent with that.” If CWG says that the proposal of ICANN-Verisign meets their requirements then we have no need to make any comment. If it does not we need to convey to NTIA-ICANN-Verisign what is missing. >
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150929/bc750c95/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 30 04:03:59 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 21:03:59 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory
In-Reply-To: <FF6FA32B-284F-408B-AA52-A927FFB7E2B6@LStAmour.org>
References: <02d701d0f6f4$3002fe20$9008fa60$@icgsec.asia>
	<FF6FA32B-284F-408B-AA52-A927FFB7E2B6@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <91409016-E95D-493F-A54C-7874748B009A@cooperw.in>

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.

I would suggest having a separate section at the top for items that cross all three communities - PTI, IPR.

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.

Alissa 

> On Sep 27, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> 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
> 
> 
> <ICG - Action Item Inventory - Draft.xlsx>_______________________________________________
> 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 Sep 30 04:29:11 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 21:29:11 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Please find attached revised summary proposal
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B43AC7@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <56015C55.8010301@oracle.com> <5605888C.7070400@oracle.com>
	<010e01d0f7bb$b181c040$148540c0$@icgsec.asia>
	<DM2PR07MB5891A111E968688B4A8C6D0AC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<5606C128.7030609@oracle.com>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B438C4@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<5609496B.8000206@oracle.com>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B43AC7@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <27CE69CB-5DA5-42BA-A1BC-679F9CA83FBC@cooperw.in>

Thank you to Joe for writing this up.

I agree with the others who support Milton’s edits. In general I think this text is looking good.

I think what we will end up doing is breaking the paragraphs up and putting them in the appropriate sub-sections of Part 0 about the individual NTIA criteria. The paragraph about security and stability at least will likely need some editing to flow with the rest of the text that is already there.

I wasn’t sure what you were specifically referencing in this sentence:

Some concerns were predicated on the ability to achieve some of the needed actions in contracts and to appropriately enforce them.  This is a matter that the communities are addressing in their further implementation work with the legal bases for actions being established in the proposal and across existing workstreams <>[j1] <applewebdata://64F54186-CDF1-4AC9-9968-A069B2B72100#_msocom_1> 
 <> [j1] <applewebdata://64F54186-CDF1-4AC9-9968-A069B2B72100#_msoanchor_1>Are we handling this elsewhere?

Could you clarify?

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Sep 28, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> On the contrary.  We need to be aware of the issues and the questions, but I don’t want to go into this level of detail in our final proposal.
>  
> From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>] 
> Sent: 28 September 2015 15:07
> To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
>  
> My recollection of the comment was a statement that the voting potential might be dependent on some developments related to parallel work-streams.  Not being in those, I can't be specific as to details.  Absent a specific objection from anyone who may know better we'll take the Milton's comments on board as suggested; unless your second paragraph suggests a need for a change as to tone related to the likelihood  of government ccTLD voting impacting outcome ?
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 9/28/2015 9:41 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
> I would just note that the CSC is not supposed to be a voting body, but might if it escalated to the ccNSO and GNSO for possible further escalation.  That step suggests to me that it will need to work through consensus, but then its role should be focussed on the technical performance, so the decision will be about whether the IANA functions operator will be able to put [whatever mess] right.
>  
> That’s not to belittle the chance of voting, but it would be inappropriate to prevent a ccTLD being represented because it was government owned or controlled.  I think the answer to the “concern” would be that even two government-controlled ccTLDs would not have an absolute majority in and decision by vote.
>  
> I cannot remember the discussion Joe alludes to:  I think I might have questioned this, if someone had:  the thing about the CSC is that it should seek to resolve performance issues with the PTI (or a subsequent IANA functions operator) “to the PTI Board and further if necessary.”  In itself it can only refer performance issues that are not being resolved to the ccNSO & GNSO “for consideration.”  It would be for the ccNSO and GNSO to decide whether the issue were serious enough to refer to a special IFR.
>  
> So I’m fine with Milton’s re-wording.
>  
> Martin
>  
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
> Sent: 26 September 2015 17:01
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
>  
> Milton:
> 
> I am fine with the suggestion, if others are OK.. Recall that they yellow was to see if there was a needed cross reference to other sections that might address the issue more fully.  I recall that a question had been raised at the meeting, perhaps by Kavouss, questioning the assertion related to voting in the CSC being a real issue due to issues being resolved in parallel workstreams...
> 
> Joe 
> 
> On 9/26/2015 11:14 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> Joe,
>  
> I would like to suggest some improvements in  the paragraph on the NTIA criterion pertaining to governments.
>  
> You wrote:
>  
> A range of comments addressed the role of governments.  Among the most relevant: a couple felt that government roles would be too constrained and they would not be able to fulfill all of the criteria of the Tunis Agenda; a couple also highlighted a concern for the possible role future legislation by US government based on concern of jurisdiction; and more commentators focused on what they perceived to be a possible enhanced voting role for the GAC and concerns of governments as owners of ccTLDs in the CSC.  The proposal cannot address all hypothetical situations and has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements.  The ICG sees no further action as appropriate at this point, but notes the concerns raised.
>  
>  
> I would propose to replace this paragraph with the following statement:
>  
> The overwhelming majority of comments agreed that the proposal does not replace NTIA stewardship with a government-led or intergovernmental solution. Some comments felt that governmental roles would be too constrained; others felt that the role of the U.S. government was still too strong due to the retention of U.S. jurisdiction. A few other commentators expressed concerns about the role of government-controlled ccTLDs in the CSC. The ICG notes the concerns raised, but believes that the proposal has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements, and thus sees no further action as needed.
>  
> A small number of comments expressed concern about the strengthening of the GAC in the new accountability arrangements. The ICG notes that insofar as they justify changes in the proposal, these comments are best addressed by the CCWG on enhanced accountability.
>  
>   <>
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:58 PM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
>  
> FYI please see the email from Joe below with the attached proposed text.
>  
> From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>] 
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:47 PM
> To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>
> Subject: Fwd: Please find attached revised summary proposal
>  
>  
> FYI
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message -------- 
> Subject: 
> Please find attached revised summary proposal
> Date: 
> Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:49:09 -0400
> From: 
> joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> Organization: 
> Oracle Corporation
> To: 
> internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> <internal-cg at icann.org> <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>
>  
> 
> Please note that I found no cross reference in our proposal to the role 
> of government as multistakeholder participant that would address the 
> concern raised that such participation may bee seen as at odds with the 
> NTIA criteria.  I have tried to raise an innocuous addition as a 
> footnote to deal with the concern in a neutral fashion.  I have 
> highlighted it in red to facilitate ease of comment.  Those topics 
> highlighted in yellow are possible places where other more specific work 
> may supersede this language and be replaced by a cross reference.  There 
> is one margin question as well.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150929/b16a9cd1/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 30 04:29:45 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 21:29:45 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
	Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B4431D@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <00c101d0f7b7$07752d20$165f8760$@icgsec.asia>
	<00cf01d0f7b8$36d1b2e0$a47518a0$@icgsec.asia>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B42840@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<000001d0fa05$43c9e630$cb5db290$@icgsec.asia>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B4431D@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <0FF60A0C-BDEA-46A1-B259-D1A81A02188B@cooperw.in>

Thanks Martin. I think this is in good shape.

For consistency across Part 0, and because it can be hard to categorize every point made in evert comment, I think it would be better to refrain from including the specific numbers of comments that took various positions. Do you think you could generalize the first paragraph so it cites the arguments made without giving the numbers? I think we can include the numbers in the summary document.

My other question is if you have a view as to where this fits in Part 0. It’s not immediately obvious to me where this should go.

Thanks,
Alissa 

> On Sep 28, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> Following Milton’s comment about grammar (writing documents close to midnight at the end of a weekend is never a good idea!), I had a look at the text and have amended to try to correct the text and make it easier to understand.  I’ve now posted (in mark-up) a v1.1 as Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1-1.docx.
>  
> Sorry for this.
>  
> Best
>  
> Martin
>  
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>] 
> Sent: 28 September 2015 16:49
> To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>
> Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
>  
> Dear Martin and All,
>  
> This document is now in the Part 0 edits subfolder for your review and reference:
>  
> Dropbox subfolder short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT <http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT>
> Document short link (renamed as “Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1.docx”) : http://icgsec.asia/1NXmhYD <http://icgsec.asia/1NXmhYD>
>  
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
>  <> 
> From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>] 
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:47 PM
> To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>; internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>
> Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
>  
> Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute.  My apologies to colleagues – I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.
>  
> I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached word document:  Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):
>  
> Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction.  Of these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction.  Five agreed that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.
>  
> The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction.  This reflected the discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction.  The ICG also noted that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition of stewardship – given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability – would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in the transition.
>  
> Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified ICANN’s jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post transition).  It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability and stability.  It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options.  The ICG agrees that the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this work.
>  
> I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but would welcome colleagues’ comments.
>  
> Best
>  
>  
> Martin
>  
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>] 
> Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
> To: Martin Boyle
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>
> Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
>  
> Hi Martin,
>  
> Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC. 
>  
> M6: 7    Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)
>  
> The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT <http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT>)  – you may either upload to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.
>  
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150929/a2d43208/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 30 04:31:08 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 21:31:08 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 Draft Text on Critisisms about Complexity
	and Size
In-Reply-To: <5601F733.4040504@ripe.net>
References: <27FF6AA5-2685-4D8E-967E-67F2731294D5@cooperw.in>
	<F10E7B99-70A0-4E27-B9E2-5A50219A6448@cooperw.in>
	<560199B7.1030108@ripe.net>
	<F4CF3FCD-90F4-46B7-A1C0-FC2D4E79CF47@cooperw.in>
	<729A96F0-7622-4A1D-83AF-D3FF67644B44@gmail.com>
	<357B02CA-3024-4980-8FEA-B00340793180@cooperw.in>
	<5601F733.4040504@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <DE04665C-84E0-4D0F-8D80-D22B53C529F4@cooperw.in>

This is great. Thank you Daniel and Paul.

Alissa

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 5:49 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 23.09.15 0:30 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Hi Kavouss,
>> 
>> Thanks. The proposed updates to Part 0 that were assigned to various
>> people at the F2F are due Sept 27 for review on the mailing list next week.
>> 
>> Alissa
> 
> And here is the assignment from Paul and Daniel.
> 
> We'll leave it to the editor where to weave it in
> after the "committee-editing" stage. ;-)
> 
> Daniel
> 
> -------
> 
> Some comments have suggested that the ICG proposal is unexpectedly
> or overly complex, and in some cases implied that this perceived
> complexity represents a threat to the workability of the proposal.
> 
> It is true that the ICG proposal is a lengthy document: It contains three
> substantial components which are very detailed and also different in
> structure and content, making it difficult for any one observer to fully
> absorb.  However this structure is a direct result of the ICG's chosen
> approach to the transition planning process, namely to recognise that
> the IANA serves three distinct operational communities and to allow them
> to devise their respective plans independently, according to their
> own needs, priorities and processes.
> 
> The ICG's chosen approach could be regarded as an application of the
> subsidiarity principle, whereby the solution to any given problem should
> be located as close as possible to those who are affected by it; which
> in a bottom up process inevitably results in a variety of independent
> outcomes which are naturally diverse.  The ICG believes that this
> variety of approaches, which is clearly apparent in the transition
> proposal, does not in itself represent complexity.  Rather it represents
> a large body of work, but a body which is cleanly divided amongst the
> separate proposals, and which features, as expected, few interactions or
> dependencies among those 3 components.
> 
> At the outset of its work the ICG has considered a different process
> with an aim to produce a more uniform singular solution.  However, the
> ICG felt that such an approach would have been extremely challenging,
> and less likely to produce a single plan with the full support of the
> entire community.  It is possible in fact that such a singular solution
> would turn out be more complex than the plan which has been produced.
> 
> One final consideration, related again to the volume of work rather than
> to complexity, is that the implementation of each of the 3 plans will
> impose substantial workload on the IANA.  This needs to be managed
> carefully during the implementation period, in consultation with the
> communities regarding respective requirements and priorities, in order
> to ensure that the transition takes place within the required timeframe.



From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 30 04:32:31 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 21:32:31 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] PTI related issues slide 5
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3CA19@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3CA19@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <376207AE-C167-4EF7-9328-F332011B168E@cooperw.in>

I realized we never actually closed on this, but I assume the silence from everyone else meant you agreed with Martin’s assessment. In reviewing slide 5, I certainly did.

Thanks Martin for your efforts.
Alissa

> On Sep 23, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto:Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150929/4f1f396e/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Sep 30 04:34:16 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 21:34:16 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] proposed text change with regards to IPR
In-Reply-To: <FEC0E447-EBF5-4EA3-A654-EAF48EF3822C@piuha.net>
References: <CC915295-BE60-4110-9409-C886D9F38FEC@piuha.net>
	<FEC0E447-EBF5-4EA3-A654-EAF48EF3822C@piuha.net>
Message-ID: <164B2E79-4A52-4E9D-B971-6A4B446B2D69@cooperw.in>

Thanks Jari, I think this is a good improvement.

Alissa

> On Sep 19, 2015, at 5:05 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for all the feedback.
> 
> I have an updated version of the proposal text re: IPR now in DropBox,
> file IANA-transition-proposal-IPR-changes-v2.doc and also in text
> form below.
> 
> ——
> 
> The ICG identified earlier a potential compatibility issue regarding the IANA trademarks and the iana.org domain name. The numbers community expects that both are associated with the IANA function and not with a particular IANA Function Operator. The entity that is associated with the trademarks and domains holds them on behalf of the three operational communities and the current operators.
> 
> Although the protocol parameters proposal did not speak to this issue, in response to an ICG inquiry the protocol parameters community indicated that it had no objection and was willing to help contribute to the arrangement.
> 
> The names proposal contains text that refers to the trademark in Annex S. In response to an ICG inquiry about the text, the CWG indicated that the text is clearly defined as placeholder text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG. In effect, the names proposal did not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademarks (and it is completely silent as regards the domain name). Since then, the CWG has confirmed that its position is consistent with that of the other two communities in that it has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator. These community positions are also consistent with the ICANN board statement on the same topic.
> 
> As a result, the ICG considers the three proposals to be compatible. While the requirements in the transition plan are therefore clear, work remains to actually implement the requirements. Detailed implementation requirements for the entity holding the IPR will be agreed and specified, an appropriate entity will then be created or selected such that it can meet the detailed requirements. The ICG notes that the operational communities are coordinating these details, and the ICG expects this coordination to continue during the implementation phase to ensure that the requirements are met. Some of the questions that the ICG received during the public comment period of the proposal relate to the implementation details. These details become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation.
> 
> ——
> 
> Comments again appreciated.
> 
> 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 Sep 30 04:40:14 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 21:40:14 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assembling Part 0
Message-ID: <B4C6A038-6888-480A-991D-5247C957CB74@cooperw.in>

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. 

Alissa

From paf at frobbit.se  Wed Sep 30 06:57:11 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:57:11 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assembling Part 0
In-Reply-To: <B4C6A038-6888-480A-991D-5247C957CB74@cooperw.in>
References: <B4C6A038-6888-480A-991D-5247C957CB74@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <1B307D02-A89A-45BE-9340-810465CB9EC6@frobbit.se>

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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150930/68a90c44/attachment.sig>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Wed Sep 30 14:13:03 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:13:03 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 language for RZM
In-Reply-To: <734DE367-61A0-4544-876B-7B22AF28004F@cooperw.in>
References: <DM2PR07MB589EB8C7FE7AEF53E3206FAAC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<734DE367-61A0-4544-876B-7B22AF28004F@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589652A43C8D95AB76806A7AC4D0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Alissa
I agree that we should try to integrated Paragraph 55 and my proposed text. Also agree with your other proposed edits.

Below, is a first stab at merging the two”

===

The ICG notes that, under the current IANA Functions Contract, the DNS Root Zone Management process currently has three functional roles: the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM), and the Root Zone Administrator (RZA). A complete and finalized transition requires revising the relationship between the current IANA functions operator (ICANN), the current RZM (Verisign) and the current Root Zone Administrator (the U.S. Commerce Department NTIA). Insofar as those revisions require amendments to (or elimination of) the cooperative agreement between the NTIA and Verisign, the process will be controlled by the NTIA, not the ICG. This “related and parallel transition,” as the NTIA described it in its March 2014 announcement, involves interactions between NTIA, ICANN and Verisign that are outside of the ICG process. Nevertheless, the NTIA itself has recognized that “aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement,” and thus the results of that process must be consistent with the ICG proposal’s approach to the IANA Functions.

The CWG Stewardship proposal (paragraph 1150) states that the RZA role need not be continued. However, since the RZA (NTIA) has served as the linkage between the IFO and the RZM and there is currently no direct agreement between the RZM and the IFO for the Root Zone Management process, the ICG notes that some form of written agreement between the IANA functions operator and RZM that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation of the Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone Management process. [Insert here text about separating the roles or changing roles once a response received from CWG]
So far the NTIA’s process seems to have built upon the output of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. The names CWG proposed elimination of the NTIA’s root zone change authorization function and described a set of guidelines and principles regarding post-transition root zone administration. To the ICG, the post-transition RZM architecture proposed in an NTIA-solicited document by ICANN and Verisign (cite) seems to be consistent with those guidelines and principles.

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:
•        Asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer;
•        Asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements

===


Thanks Milton. I think this is good. I have some specific comments below. One over-arching question: how do you think this text fits together with the text currently in paragraph 55 of the proposal? Would we keep both, combine them somehow, or replace paragraph 55 with the text below? I quite like the detail in paragraph 55 and the references to the CWG proposal, so perhaps some version of it could remain by combining it with your second paragraph below and editing the combined paragraph.

On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu<mailto:milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>> wrote:

I thought I had sent this out before but now I am not sure. So to be safe I send it now (again?)

The ICG recognizes that a complete and finalized transition requires more than implementing its own proposal. It also requires revising the relationship between the current Root Zone Maintainer (Verisign), Root Zone Administrator (the U.S. Commerce Department) and IANA functions operator (ICANN). Insofar as those revisions require amendments to (or elimination of) the cooperative agreement between the NTIA and Verisign, the process will be controlled by the NTIA, not the ICG. This “related and parallel transition,” as the NTIA described it in its March 2014 announcement, involves interactions between NTIA, ICANN and Verisign that are outside of the ICG process. Nevertheless, the NTIA itself has recognized that “aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement,” and thus the results of that process must be consistent with the ICG proposal’s approach to the IANA Functions.

So far the NTIA process seems to have built upon the output of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. The names CWG proposed elimination of the NTIA’s root zone change authorization function and described a set of guidelines and principles regarding post-transition root zone administration. To the ICG, the post-transition RZM architecture proposed in an NTIA-solicited document by ICANN and Verisign does not seem to be inconsistent with those guidelines and principles.

I think we should cite the document. Also, I would suggest “seems to be consistent” rather than the double negative.



In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholder groups expressed concern about the transparency of the

I would suggest “stakeholders” rather than “stakeholder groups.”

Alissa


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:
•        Asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer;

•        Asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements
<Additional text would depend on the result of these inquiries. E.g., if CWG replies to our first question saying, “yes, the second principle implies that different organizations should be providing IFO and RZM, and before that changes there should be a consultation that obtains consensus” then we can say to the NTIA: “make sure any revisions in the Verisign cooperative agreement/ICANN arrangements you approve are not inconsistent with that.” If CWG says that the proposal of ICANN-Verisign meets their requirements then we have no need to make any comment. If it does not we need to convey to NTIA-ICANN-Verisign what is missing. >



Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150930/4c400a6b/attachment.html>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Sep 30 14:48:45 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:48:45 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
 Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <0FF60A0C-BDEA-46A1-B259-D1A81A02188B@cooperw.in>
References: <00c101d0f7b7$07752d20$165f8760$@icgsec.asia>
	<00cf01d0f7b8$36d1b2e0$a47518a0$@icgsec.asia>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B42840@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<000001d0fa05$43c9e630$cb5db290$@icgsec.asia>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B4431D@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<0FF60A0C-BDEA-46A1-B259-D1A81A02188B@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B47997@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Hi Alissa,

I’ve incorporated the change requested by Jean-Jacques and supported by Milton (I’ve also made a small editorial change in that paragraph) and made the adjustments to the first paragraph as you requested – in Dropbox as v.2 and the marked up version is attached.

Where to stick it?  I don’t really have any strong views.  I guess we ought to include it under IV. C.2. Accountability, perhaps at the end, but it could be in IV.B. given that some were arguing that the proposal was not complete (again at the end).   I must admit, though that I assumed we were planning a stand-alone section on consultation comments – that would make most sense to me, but it only works if we are dealing with a significant number of issues raised in the consultation.

Hope this helps

Martin


From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
Sent: 30 September 2015 05:30
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org; admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Thanks Martin. I think this is in good shape.

For consistency across Part 0, and because it can be hard to categorize every point made in evert comment, I think it would be better to refrain from including the specific numbers of comments that took various positions. Do you think you could generalize the first paragraph so it cites the arguments made without giving the numbers? I think we can include the numbers in the summary document.

My other question is if you have a view as to where this fits in Part 0. It’s not immediately obvious to me where this should go.

Thanks,
Alissa

On Sep 28, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>> wrote:

Following Milton’s comment about grammar (writing documents close to midnight at the end of a weekend is never a good idea!), I had a look at the text and have amended to try to correct the text and make it easier to understand.  I’ve now posted (in mark-up) a v1.1 as Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1-1.docx.

Sorry for this.

Best

Martin

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: 28 September 2015 16:49
To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia<mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>
Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Dear Martin and All,

This document is now in the Part 0 edits subfolder for your review and reference:

Dropbox subfolder short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT
Document short link (renamed as “Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1.docx”) : http://icgsec.asia/1NXmhYD

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:47 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia<mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>
Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute.  My apologies to colleagues – I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.

I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached word document:  Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):

Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction.  Of these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction.  Five agreed that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.

The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction.  This reflected the discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction.  The ICG also noted that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition of stewardship – given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability – would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in the transition.

Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified ICANN’s jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post transition).  It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability and stability.  It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options.  The ICG agrees that the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this work.

I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but would welcome colleagues’ comments.

Best


Martin

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia<mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>
Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Hi Martin,

Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC.

M6: 7    Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)

The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT)  – you may either upload to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150930/2c4c5b5b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 39915 bytes
Desc: Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v2.docx
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150930/2c4c5b5b/attachment.docx>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Sep 30 15:01:51 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:01:51 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for ICG Call 22
Message-ID: <024c01d0fb90$f143d000$d3cb7000$@icgsec.asia>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150930/83132f15/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: minutes-teleconference-10-sept-2015-draft-v1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 104448 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150930/83132f15/attachment.doc>

From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com  Wed Sep 30 15:11:22 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:11:22 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] PTI related issues slide 5
In-Reply-To: <376207AE-C167-4EF7-9328-F332011B168E@cooperw.in>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B3CA19@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<376207AE-C167-4EF7-9328-F332011B168E@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <6DAFB2C9-DE5F-4AB3-B6A5-80B6A0D08317@Internet-Matters.com>

Hi Alissa,

and thanks Martin.  I support your assessment below.

Lynn

On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> I realized we never actually closed on this, but I assume the silence from everyone else meant you agreed with Martin’s assessment. In reviewing slide 5, I certainly did.
> 
> Thanks Martin for your efforts.
> Alissa
> 
>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Sep 30 15:20:55 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:20:55 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 language for RZM
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589652A43C8D95AB76806A7AC4D0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR07MB589EB8C7FE7AEF53E3206FAAC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<734DE367-61A0-4544-876B-7B22AF28004F@cooperw.in>
	<DM2PR07MB589652A43C8D95AB76806A7AC4D0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <E09BA1B4-E8F1-4A2B-8776-A1823B4A5EA1@Internet-Matters.com>

Hi Milton,

I think this is clear and complete (except where noted, of course).

Lynn

On Sep 30, 2015, at 10:13 AM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

> Alissa
> I agree that we should try to integrated Paragraph 55 and my proposed text. Also agree with your other proposed edits.
>  
> Below, is a first stab at merging the two”
>  
> ===
>  
> The ICG notes that, under the current IANA Functions Contract, the DNS Root Zone Management process currently has three functional roles: the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM), and the Root Zone Administrator (RZA). A complete and finalized transition requires revising the relationship between the current IANA functions operator (ICANN), the current RZM (Verisign) and the current Root Zone Administrator (the U.S. Commerce Department NTIA). Insofar as those revisions require amendments to (or elimination of) the cooperative agreement between the NTIA and Verisign, the process will be controlled by the NTIA, not the ICG. This “related and parallel transition,” as the NTIA described it in its March 2014 announcement, involves interactions between NTIA, ICANN and Verisign that are outside of the ICG process. Nevertheless, the NTIA itself has recognized that “aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement,” and thus the results of that process must be consistent with the ICG proposal’s approach to the IANA Functions.
>  
> The CWG Stewardship proposal (paragraph 1150) states that the RZA role need not be continued. However, since the RZA (NTIA) has served as the linkage between the IFO and the RZM and there is currently no direct agreement between the RZM and the IFO for the Root Zone Management process, the ICG notes that some form of written agreement between the IANA functions operator and RZM that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation of the Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone Management process. [Insert here text about separating the roles or changing roles once a response received from CWG]
> So far the NTIA’s process seems to have built upon the output of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. The names CWG proposed elimination of the NTIA’s root zone change authorization function and described a set of guidelines and principles regarding post-transition root zone administration. To the ICG, the post-transition RZM architecture proposed in an NTIA-solicited document by ICANN and Verisign (cite) seems to be consistent with those guidelines and principles.
>  
> 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:
> •        Asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer;
> •        Asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements
>  
> ===
>  
>  
> Thanks Milton. I think this is good. I have some specific comments below. One over-arching question: how do you think this text fits together with the text currently in paragraph 55 of the proposal? Would we keep both, combine them somehow, or replace paragraph 55 with the text below? I quite like the detail in paragraph 55 and the references to the CWG proposal, so perhaps some version of it could remain by combining it with your second paragraph below and editing the combined paragraph.
>  
> On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>  
> I thought I had sent this out before but now I am not sure. So to be safe I send it now (again?)
>  
> The ICG recognizes that a complete and finalized transition requires more than implementing its own proposal. It also requires revising the relationship between the current Root Zone Maintainer (Verisign), Root Zone Administrator (the U.S. Commerce Department) and IANA functions operator (ICANN). Insofar as those revisions require amendments to (or elimination of) the cooperative agreement between the NTIA and Verisign, the process will be controlled by the NTIA, not the ICG. This “related and parallel transition,” as the NTIA described it in its March 2014 announcement, involves interactions between NTIA, ICANN and Verisign that are outside of the ICG process. Nevertheless, the NTIA itself has recognized that “aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement,” and thus the results of that process must be consistent with the ICG proposal’s approach to the IANA Functions.
>  
> So far the NTIA process seems to have built upon the output of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. The names CWG proposed elimination of the NTIA’s root zone change authorization function and described a set of guidelines and principles regarding post-transition root zone administration. To the ICG, the post-transition RZM architecture proposed in an NTIA-solicited document by ICANN and Verisign does not seem to be inconsistent with those guidelines and principles. 
>  
> I think we should cite the document. Also, I would suggest “seems to be consistent” rather than the double negative.
> 
> 
>  
> In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholder groups expressed concern about the transparency of the
>  
> I would suggest “stakeholders” rather than “stakeholder groups.”
>  
> Alissa
> 
> 
> 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:
> ·        Asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer;
> ·        Asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements
> 
> <Additional text would depend on the result of these inquiries. E.g., if CWG replies to our first question saying, “yes, the second principle implies that different organizations should be providing IFO and RZM, and before that changes there should be a consultation that obtains consensus” then we can say to the NTIA: “make sure any revisions in the Verisign cooperative agreement/ICANN arrangements you approve are not inconsistent with that.” If CWG says that the proposal of ICANN-Verisign meets their requirements then we have no need to make any comment. If it does not we need to convey to NTIA-ICANN-Verisign what is missing. >
>  
>  
>  
> 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 Lynn at LStAmour.org  Wed Sep 30 16:14:10 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:14:10 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory
In-Reply-To: <91409016-E95D-493F-A54C-7874748B009A@cooperw.in>
References: <02d701d0f6f4$3002fe20$9008fa60$@icgsec.asia>
	<FF6FA32B-284F-408B-AA52-A927FFB7E2B6@LStAmour.org>
	<91409016-E95D-493F-A54C-7874748B009A@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <88FB130D-0A06-44C5-AC0D-45C6969C8B52@LStAmour.org>

Hi Alissa,


On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 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 <Lynn at LStAmour.org> 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
>> 
>> 
>> <ICG - Action Item Inventory - Draft.xlsx>_______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 



From kdrazek at verisign.com  Wed Sep 30 16:18:37 2015
From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:18:37 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Part 0 language for RZM
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589652A43C8D95AB76806A7AC4D0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR07MB589EB8C7FE7AEF53E3206FAAC410@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<734DE367-61A0-4544-876B-7B22AF28004F@cooperw.in>
	<DM2PR07MB589652A43C8D95AB76806A7AC4D0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549960C51@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

I support this proposed language from Milton and others.

Thanks,
Keith Drazek

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:13 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Part 0 language for RZM

Alissa
I agree that we should try to integrated Paragraph 55 and my proposed text. Also agree with your other proposed edits.

Below, is a first stab at merging the two”

===

The ICG notes that, under the current IANA Functions Contract, the DNS Root Zone Management process currently has three functional roles: the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM), and the Root Zone Administrator (RZA). A complete and finalized transition requires revising the relationship between the current IANA functions operator (ICANN), the current RZM (Verisign) and the current Root Zone Administrator (the U.S. Commerce Department NTIA). Insofar as those revisions require amendments to (or elimination of) the cooperative agreement between the NTIA and Verisign, the process will be controlled by the NTIA, not the ICG. This “related and parallel transition,” as the NTIA described it in its March 2014 announcement, involves interactions between NTIA, ICANN and Verisign that are outside of the ICG process. Nevertheless, the NTIA itself has recognized that “aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement,” and thus the results of that process must be consistent with the ICG proposal’s approach to the IANA Functions.

The CWG Stewardship proposal (paragraph 1150) states that the RZA role need not be continued. However, since the RZA (NTIA) has served as the linkage between the IFO and the RZM and there is currently no direct agreement between the RZM and the IFO for the Root Zone Management process, the ICG notes that some form of written agreement between the IANA functions operator and RZM that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation of the Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone Management process. [Insert here text about separating the roles or changing roles once a response received from CWG]

So far the NTIA’s process seems to have built upon the output of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. The names CWG proposed elimination of the NTIA’s root zone change authorization function and described a set of guidelines and principles regarding post-transition root zone administration. To the ICG, the post-transition RZM architecture proposed in an NTIA-solicited document by ICANN and Verisign (cite) seems to be consistent with those guidelines and principles.

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:
•        Asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer;
•        Asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements

===


Thanks Milton. I think this is good. I have some specific comments below. One over-arching question: how do you think this text fits together with the text currently in paragraph 55 of the proposal? Would we keep both, combine them somehow, or replace paragraph 55 with the text below? I quite like the detail in paragraph 55 and the references to the CWG proposal, so perhaps some version of it could remain by combining it with your second paragraph below and editing the combined paragraph.

On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu<mailto:milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>> wrote:

I thought I had sent this out before but now I am not sure. So to be safe I send it now (again?)

The ICG recognizes that a complete and finalized transition requires more than implementing its own proposal. It also requires revising the relationship between the current Root Zone Maintainer (Verisign), Root Zone Administrator (the U.S. Commerce Department) and IANA functions operator (ICANN). Insofar as those revisions require amendments to (or elimination of) the cooperative agreement between the NTIA and Verisign, the process will be controlled by the NTIA, not the ICG. This “related and parallel transition,” as the NTIA described it in its March 2014 announcement, involves interactions between NTIA, ICANN and Verisign that are outside of the ICG process. Nevertheless, the NTIA itself has recognized that “aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement,” and thus the results of that process must be consistent with the ICG proposal’s approach to the IANA Functions.

So far the NTIA process seems to have built upon the output of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. The names CWG proposed elimination of the NTIA’s root zone change authorization function and described a set of guidelines and principles regarding post-transition root zone administration. To the ICG, the post-transition RZM architecture proposed in an NTIA-solicited document by ICANN and Verisign does not seem to be inconsistent with those guidelines and principles.

I think we should cite the document. Also, I would suggest “seems to be consistent” rather than the double negative.


In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholder groups expressed concern about the transparency of the

I would suggest “stakeholders” rather than “stakeholder groups.”

Alissa

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:
•        Asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer;

•        Asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements
<Additional text would depend on the result of these inquiries. E.g., if CWG replies to our first question saying, “yes, the second principle implies that different organizations should be providing IFO and RZM, and before that changes there should be a consultation that obtains consensus” then we can say to the NTIA: “make sure any revisions in the Verisign cooperative agreement/ICANN arrangements you approve are not inconsistent with that.” If CWG says that the proposal of ICANN-Verisign meets their requirements then we have no need to make any comment. If it does not we need to convey to NTIA-ICANN-Verisign what is missing. >



Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150930/db2e05f5/attachment.html>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Wed Sep 30 19:39:51 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:39:51 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs
In-Reply-To: <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org>
References: <C3111B06-D301-41B6-B8DF-B71BF82554F5@LStAmour.org>
	<FBE76BF9-F5B9-43AB-B27E-FF328AA0A20E@LStAmour.org>
	<D229AF9C.39C9C%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org>
	<D22AE713.39D36%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<D0C7B93D-717B-45E6-A096-A7FDF9276B74@frobbit.se>
	<D22AF21C.39D4C%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <C1496C3D-3E77-4777-9D68-463995714243@LStAmour.org>

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..   

<start>

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.

<end>

This could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere.   We look forward to the ICG's comments.

Best,
Lynn, Patrik, Elise




From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Sep 30 20:09:13 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:09:13 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public announcement re F2F meeting in Dublin and
	social media posts
Message-ID: <036101d0fbbb$e2fbbff0$a8f33fd0$@icgsec.asia>

Hi All,

 

Please see the public announcement posted for the upcoming ICG F2F and
working sessions in Dublin:

 

Web site: https://www.ianacg.org/?p=1193

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/649314833897291776 

FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1703702006525098 

 

Please share with your communities!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150930/c26347a5/attachment.html>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Wed Sep 30 20:26:57 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:26:57 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs
In-Reply-To: <0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org>
References: <C3111B06-D301-41B6-B8DF-B71BF82554F5@LStAmour.org>
	<FBE76BF9-F5B9-43AB-B27E-FF328AA0A20E@LStAmour.org>
	<D229AF9C.39C9C%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org>
	<D22AE713.39D36%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<D0C7B93D-717B-45E6-A096-A7FDF9276B74@frobbit.se>
	<D22AF21C.39D4C%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org>

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..   

<start>

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.

<end>

This could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere.   We look forward to the ICG's comments.

Best,
Lynn, Patrik, Elise




From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Wed Sep 30 20:59:50 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:59:50 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs
In-Reply-To: <0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org>
References: <C3111B06-D301-41B6-B8DF-B71BF82554F5@LStAmour.org>
	<FBE76BF9-F5B9-43AB-B27E-FF328AA0A20E@LStAmour.org>
	<D229AF9C.39C9C%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<54BF8347-D2ED-41EC-AD86-D00F7D4A8C62@lstamour.org>
	<D22AE713.39D36%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<D0C7B93D-717B-45E6-A096-A7FDF9276B74@frobbit.se>
	<D22AF21C.39D4C%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<0D056384-C22E-498D-B0AE-5CB787ED6CAD@LStAmour.org>
	<0595829C-525C-4936-BFB3-6FFF6BB5D73A@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <560C4D46.3030307@oracle.com>

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..
>
> <start>
>
> 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.
>
> <end>
>
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150930/31ebf7b2/attachment.html>