From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Jan  7 03:48:03 2016
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:48:03 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG announces upcoming conference call
Message-ID: <002101d148fe$3df27d10$b9d77730$@icgsec.asia>

Dear ICG members,

 

The announcement for the upcoming call on 13 January (20:00-21:00 UTC) has
been posted on the website and social media accounts.  By now, you should
also have received individual calendar invites for this call - if you have
not received it yet, please let me know off-list.

 

Web site: https://www.ianacg.org/?p=1266

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/684940741051691008 

FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1730728227155809 

 

Please feel free to 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/20160107/77f205ca/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Fri Jan  8 17:10:03 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:10:03 -0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
Message-ID: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>

Here is a proposed agenda for our call on Jan 13:

1. Update on CCWG work (CCWG liaisons)
2. Potential ICG meeting at ICANN 55 (Chairs)

Best,
Alissa


From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sat Jan  9 17:33:34 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 18:33:34 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-L1ere-yw-F33uArjqS2vUvnMm=bGQZihPKLD7D5z5h+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Alisa,
Happy New Year to you and your surroundings
Happy New Year to all ICG Mmembers and participants including observer,
Thank you vwery much for the message
I suggest the following to be added to the agenda,
Considering the need to send a clear message to ICG regarding the
Transition process, including the  need and role of the operating
communities in rejecting the IANA Budget.
rEGARDS
Kavouss

2016-01-08 18:10 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Here is a proposed agenda for our call on Jan 13:
>
> 1. Update on CCWG work (CCWG liaisons)
> 2. Potential ICG meeting at ICANN 55 (Chairs)
>
> Best,
> Alissa
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160109/a1566ba1/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Sat Jan  9 19:31:33 2016
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 20:31:33 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-L1ere-yw-F33uArjqS2vUvnMm=bGQZihPKLD7D5z5h+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<CACNR4-L1ere-yw-F33uArjqS2vUvnMm=bGQZihPKLD7D5z5h+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <07D4FD19-11F4-492E-9233-BEDB21ED422D@frobbit.se>

On 9 Jan 2016, at 18:33, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

> Considering the need to send a clear message to ICG regarding the Transition process, including the  need and role of the operating communities in rejecting the IANA Budget.

Can you please expand on this. Who is to send a message to whom regarding IANA Budget, and why would that message go to ICG, and even if it is, why would this message passing be something to be discussed in ICG?

Let me, as chair of SSAC, say that messages regarding IANA Budget is already passed to CCWG, for example in the form of SAC-076 where SSAC as one of the chartering organizations said the following:

> The SSAC advises that any process that empowers the Community to reject a part or the whole of the IANA Budget must be implemented in such a way as to ensure the stable and continuous delivery of the IANA Functions.

And I really hope CCWG take words like that from the chartering organizations seriously. If not, we have a completely different kind of problem with the process.

   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/20160109/e83e08c6/attachment.sig>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Sun Jan 10 08:44:50 2016
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 08:44:50 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Many thanks Alissa ..
The attached ccNSO council statement, on the 3rd draft proposal of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability, was shared on the CCWG mailing list ..
If you and colleagues agree, it would be good if someone could provide us with further details .. or is it already part of agenda item 1 below?

Kind Regards
--Manal


-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:10 PM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda

Here is a proposed agenda for our call on Jan 13:

1. Update on CCWG work (CCWG liaisons)
2. Potential ICG meeting at ICANN 55 (Chairs)

Best,
Alissa

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ccNSO COuncil statement on the CCWG 3rd Proposal.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 46450 bytes
Desc: ccNSO COuncil statement on the CCWG 3rd Proposal.pdf
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160110/24bbf02d/attachment.pdf>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sun Jan 10 11:33:02 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 12:33:02 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-+ugqr0kMvERC25ks8ntOggkV7WuiPm3xYR0MyfVeWXRA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Patrik
Thank you very much for your message
See reply as below :
 Considering the need to send a clear message to ICG regarding the
Transition process, including the  need and role of the operating
communities in rejecting the IANA Budget.

Can you please expand on this. Who is to send a message to whom regarding
IANA Budget, and why would that message go to ICG, and even if it is, why
would this message passing be something to be discussed in ICG?
1. ICG sends message to CCWG
P2.lease kindly look at Board's Comment on Recemmendation 4 in section 1b)
" Board's comments and supporting rationale on IANA Budget"
in which it is indicated that the operating communities  who are already
affected by the IANA Function Budget are the ONLY WHO HAVE SAY on IANA
FUNCION BUDGET. The Board mentioned four entities: gTLD Registries,
Regional Internet Registries ( RIRs) ,ccTLD rEGISTRIES , and IETF...
Three of these four entities are already in the 3SOs ( ccNSO,GNSO and ASO )
However. IETF is not.
This issue was preliminary discussed for the first round and will be
discussed for the second; perhaps the last round on Thursday 14 January.
The preliniary discussion almost recognized that IETF should be 7 is
represented by IAB would be involved .This has not yet been
confirmed.Moreover, that discussion DID NOT agreed that the rejection of
the IANA Busget should only be done by these four entities without
involving the entitre participating SOs /ACs ) either 5 or 4 ,depending on
GACdecision yet to be taken)
For these reasons ICG may wish to emphacise the role of IETF EITHER
DIRECTLY OR THROUGH iab IN THE PROCESS MENTIONED ABOVE.

 Let me, as chair of SSAC, say that messages regarding IANA Budget is
already passed to CCWG, for example in the form of SAC-076 where SSAC as
one of the chartering organizations said the following:

> The SSAC advises that any process that empowers the Community to reject a
part or the whole of the IANA Budget must be implemented in such a way as
to ensure the stable and continuous delivery of the IANA Functions.

The discussion is far more advancing from the time that such information
was provided by SSAC to CCWG many months ago. Thus we need to take into
account the latest développent of the matter

 And I really hope CCWG take words like that from the chartering
organizations seriously. If not, we have a completely different kind of
problem with the process.

some Chartering organizations have not yet provided their comments to the
3rd proposal  as the formal deadline is 21 January 2016.
I do not know whether ssac will review its initial comments or not.
Regards
Kavouss


2016-01-10 9:44 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:

> Many thanks Alissa ..
> The attached ccNSO council statement, on the 3rd draft proposal of the
> CCWG on ICANN Accountability, was shared on the CCWG mailing list ..
> If you and colleagues agree, it would be good if someone could provide us
> with further details .. or is it already part of agenda item 1 below?
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:10 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
>
> Here is a proposed agenda for our call on Jan 13:
>
> 1. Update on CCWG work (CCWG liaisons)
> 2. Potential ICG meeting at ICANN 55 (Chairs)
>
> Best,
> Alissa
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160110/1ef949b3/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Sun Jan 10 11:39:14 2016
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 12:39:14 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-+ugqr0kMvERC25ks8ntOggkV7WuiPm3xYR0MyfVeWXRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<CACNR4-+ugqr0kMvERC25ks8ntOggkV7WuiPm3xYR0MyfVeWXRA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5A8651ED-FAF5-48D4-855E-75924D5006AF@frobbit.se>

On 10 Jan 2016, at 12:33, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

> some Chartering organizations have not yet provided their comments to the 3rd proposal  as the formal deadline is 21 January 2016.
> I do not know whether ssac will review its initial comments or not.

FWIW, neither do SSAC. Depends on what happens between now and Jan 21.

   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/20160110/34e08668/attachment.sig>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sun Jan 10 12:58:50 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 13:58:50 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <5A8651ED-FAF5-48D4-855E-75924D5006AF@frobbit.se>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<CACNR4-+ugqr0kMvERC25ks8ntOggkV7WuiPm3xYR0MyfVeWXRA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5A8651ED-FAF5-48D4-855E-75924D5006AF@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-JGM9uh7SxHFu7+hzFStJnbv5+=7TkSZNwt8BJK7yZnsQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Patril,
Yes you are right. But there isx a problem in CCWG in this regard that I
will  indicate in my briefing tomorrow evening .That is the following
CCWG planned to finalize some Recommendations before 21 January 2016 such
as REC. 4 .I raised the issue that what happenes to the comments which will
be submitted between the finalization of those Recs. and 21 of January.
We in CCWG also do not know how the results of the discussions in January
will be reflected in the Final Proposal  ,in particular, if major changes
are made how it will appears
a) without being subject to public comments
b) with public comments
The situation in b) could delay the process by the duration of public
comments and its examination
These were some of the points that I intend to raise tomorrow evening as
part of briefing but tou idrectly raised them
Regards
Kavouss


2016-01-10 12:39 GMT+01:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:

> On 10 Jan 2016, at 12:33, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
> > some Chartering organizations have not yet provided their comments to
> the 3rd proposal  as the formal deadline is 21 January 2016.
> > I do not know whether ssac will review its initial comments or not.
>
> FWIW, neither do SSAC. Depends on what happens between now and Jan 21.
>
>    Patrik
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160110/d76882eb/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Sun Jan 10 13:14:17 2016
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:14:17 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-JGM9uh7SxHFu7+hzFStJnbv5+=7TkSZNwt8BJK7yZnsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<CACNR4-+ugqr0kMvERC25ks8ntOggkV7WuiPm3xYR0MyfVeWXRA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5A8651ED-FAF5-48D4-855E-75924D5006AF@frobbit.se>
	<CACNR4-JGM9uh7SxHFu7+hzFStJnbv5+=7TkSZNwt8BJK7yZnsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BF90F44-8564-4C70-BC3E-007015D8FAAD@frobbit.se>

On 10 Jan 2016, at 13:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

> We in CCWG also do not know how the results of the discussions in January will be reflected in the Final Proposal  ,in particular, if major changes are made how it will appears
> a) without being subject to public comments
> b) with public comments
> The situation in b) could delay the process by the duration of public comments and its examination
> These were some of the points that I intend to raise tomorrow evening as part of briefing but tou idrectly raised them

As a chartering Organization, SSAC already did rise our points in:

SAC-067: Overview and History of the IANA Functions (15 August 2014)
SAC-068: SSAC Report on the IANA Functions Contract (10 October 2014)
SAC-069: SSAC Advisory on Maintaining the Security and Stability of the IANA Functions Through the Stewardship Transition (10 December 2014)
SAC-071: SSAC Comments on Cross Community Working Group Proposal on ICANN Accountability Enhancements (05 June 2015)
SAC-072: SSAC Comment on the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions Proposal (24 June 2015)
SAC-076: SSAC Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 3rd Draft Proposal (21 December 2015)

If you specifically look at SAC-071 and then SAC-076 you see that no new issues are brought up. We already have stated our view very early on in the process. Because of this, SSAC will of course not bring up any *new* things, but "just" evaluate whether the proposal put forward do address our issues and concerns on what issues are important.

To be even more specific, in SAC-076, we only point out:

1. The SSAC supports the incorporation into the Bylaws of the periodic review to ensure that ICANN is “[p]reserving the security, stability, and resiliency of the Domain Name System.”

I.e. support of what is suggested.

2. The SSAC notes that the Sole Designator will be empowered to appoint and remove only those Directors selected by the organizations that currently appoint voting members to the ICANN Board (i.e., At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Address Supporting Organization (ASO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), and Nominating Committee (NomCom)). It will not be empowered to appoint or remove Board Liaisons.

I.e. support of what is suggested.

But also:

3. The SSAC advises that any process that empowers the Community to reject a part or the whole of the IANA Budget must be implemented in such a way as to ensure the stable and continuous delivery of the IANA Functions.

Which is an important issue.

I.e. we are at the moment down to these three issues, and if 1&2 are not changed, and if 3 is taken into account, then SSAC by definition will just do a clean support for the proposal on Jan 21, and only comments might have to do with suggestions for the *implementation* phase which we all know will be important.

I.e. SSAC do feel a great responsibility to not increase delay, by for example introduce surprises.

    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/20160110/4ab8507e/attachment.sig>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sun Jan 10 19:35:21 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:35:21 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <4BF90F44-8564-4C70-BC3E-007015D8FAAD@frobbit.se>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<CACNR4-+ugqr0kMvERC25ks8ntOggkV7WuiPm3xYR0MyfVeWXRA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5A8651ED-FAF5-48D4-855E-75924D5006AF@frobbit.se>
	<CACNR4-JGM9uh7SxHFu7+hzFStJnbv5+=7TkSZNwt8BJK7yZnsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BF90F44-8564-4C70-BC3E-007015D8FAAD@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-KbSwr6ymaM_fwo7ChGua4xn7g=fDRTA+Y+Th=FRPW6Mw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Patrik,
CCWG is not only deals wirth SSAC
ICG needs to comment, if any , on the process.
When you say in the following paragraph
Quote
*"2. The SSAC notes that the Sole Designator will be empowered to appoint
and remove only those Directors selected by the organizations that
currently appoint voting members to the ICANN Board (i.e., At-Large
Advisory Committee (ALAC), Address Supporting Organization (ASO), Country
Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), Generic Names Supporting
Organization (GNSO), and Nominating Committee (NomCom)). It will not be
empowered to appoint or remove Board Liaisons."*
Unquote
What do you mean by "removing  only those Director"?
If you mean Individual Director, yes , you are right But if you mean the
Board recall ( the entire Board ) ,the answer is NO as in that case the
entire SOs/ ACs; depeding on the decision on the GAC STATUS will
particuiipate.in recall..
As for the Liaison ,you may be right,
Kavouss

2016-01-10 14:14 GMT+01:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:

> On 10 Jan 2016, at 13:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
> > We in CCWG also do not know how the results of the discussions in
> January will be reflected in the Final Proposal  ,in particular, if major
> changes are made how it will appears
> > a) without being subject to public comments
> > b) with public comments
> > The situation in b) could delay the process by the duration of public
> comments and its examination
> > These were some of the points that I intend to raise tomorrow evening as
> part of briefing but tou idrectly raised them
>
> As a chartering Organization, SSAC already did rise our points in:
>
> SAC-067: Overview and History of the IANA Functions (15 August 2014)
> SAC-068: SSAC Report on the IANA Functions Contract (10 October 2014)
> SAC-069: SSAC Advisory on Maintaining the Security and Stability of the
> IANA Functions Through the Stewardship Transition (10 December 2014)
> SAC-071: SSAC Comments on Cross Community Working Group Proposal on ICANN
> Accountability Enhancements (05 June 2015)
> SAC-072: SSAC Comment on the Cross Community Working Group on Naming
> Related Functions Proposal (24 June 2015)
> SAC-076: SSAC Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 3rd Draft Proposal (21
> December 2015)
>
> If you specifically look at SAC-071 and then SAC-076 you see that no new
> issues are brought up. We already have stated our view very early on in the
> process. Because of this, SSAC will of course not bring up any *new*
> things, but "just" evaluate whether the proposal put forward do address our
> issues and concerns on what issues are important.
>
> To be even more specific, in SAC-076, we only point out:
>
> 1. The SSAC supports the incorporation into the Bylaws of the periodic
> review to ensure that ICANN is “[p]reserving the security, stability, and
> resiliency of the Domain Name System.”
>
> I.e. support of what is suggested.
>
> 2. The SSAC notes that the Sole Designator will be empowered to appoint
> and remove only those Directors selected by the organizations that
> currently appoint voting members to the ICANN Board (i.e., At-Large
> Advisory Committee (ALAC), Address Supporting Organization (ASO), Country
> Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), Generic Names Supporting
> Organization (GNSO), and Nominating Committee (NomCom)). It will not be
> empowered to appoint or remove Board Liaisons.
>
> I.e. support of what is suggested.
>
> But also:
>
> 3. The SSAC advises that any process that empowers the Community to reject
> a part or the whole of the IANA Budget must be implemented in such a way as
> to ensure the stable and continuous delivery of the IANA Functions.
>
> Which is an important issue.
>
> I.e. we are at the moment down to these three issues, and if 1&2 are not
> changed, and if 3 is taken into account, then SSAC by definition will just
> do a clean support for the proposal on Jan 21, and only comments might have
> to do with suggestions for the *implementation* phase which we all know
> will be important.
>
> I.e. SSAC do feel a great responsibility to not increase delay, by for
> example introduce surprises.
>
>     Patrik
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160110/9d598b1f/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jan 11 17:53:40 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:53:40 -0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-L1ere-yw-F33uArjqS2vUvnMm=bGQZihPKLD7D5z5h+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<CACNR4-L1ere-yw-F33uArjqS2vUvnMm=bGQZihPKLD7D5z5h+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F8A9F7A1-56B2-484F-B27C-A3F5C213D5EE@cooperw.in>

Hi Kavouss,

I think at the conclusion of item #1 below we can discuss whether there is any action the ICG needs to take in light of developments in the CCWG (related to the IANA budget or any other topic).

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Alisa,
> Happy New Year to you and your surroundings
> Happy New Year to all ICG Mmembers and participants including observer,
> Thank you vwery much for the message
> I suggest the following to be added to the agenda,
> Considering the need to send a clear message to ICG regarding the Transition process, including the  need and role of the operating communities in rejecting the IANA Budget.
> rEGARDS
> Kavouss
> 
> 2016-01-08 18:10 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>:
> Here is a proposed agenda for our call on Jan 13:
> 
> 1. Update on CCWG work (CCWG liaisons)
> 2. Potential ICG meeting at ICANN 55 (Chairs)
> 
> Best,
> 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 <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/20160111/977f992f/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jan 11 18:04:01 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:04:01 -0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <FED07741-CE63-47A5-AC00-24E8D819D6B2@cooperw.in>

Hi Manal,

I think this is part of item #1. Anyone who has been involved in the CCWG discussion or in developing input provided to the CCWG should feel free to provide an update.

The CCWG has received input from a number of chartering organizations and of course all of the public commenters, including the CWG. I think the key points we need to understand from our liaisons and others who have been involved is the status of proposal (including the CWG dependencies) and likely future timeline.

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Jan 10, 2016, at 12:44 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
> Many thanks Alissa ..
> The attached ccNSO council statement, on the 3rd draft proposal of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability, was shared on the CCWG mailing list ..
> If you and colleagues agree, it would be good if someone could provide us with further details .. or is it already part of agenda item 1 below?
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:10 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
> 
> Here is a proposed agenda for our call on Jan 13:
> 
> 1. Update on CCWG work (CCWG liaisons)
> 2. Potential ICG meeting at ICANN 55 (Chairs)
> 
> Best,
> Alissa
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> <ccNSO COuncil statement on the CCWG 3rd Proposal.pdf>



From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Mon Jan 11 19:17:31 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:17:31 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <FED07741-CE63-47A5-AC00-24E8D819D6B2@cooperw.in>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<FED07741-CE63-47A5-AC00-24E8D819D6B2@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-KpHwohgE-HOG=mHUH=vYqyCbEknWma8T1UynL1ySSDEw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Alissa,
Certainly.
I just wanted to raise the need or otherwise tgo do so
Kavous


2016-01-11 19:04 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Hi Manal,
>
> I think this is part of item #1. Anyone who has been involved in the CCWG
> discussion or in developing input provided to the CCWG should feel free to
> provide an update.
>
> The CCWG has received input from a number of chartering organizations and
> of course all of the public commenters, including the CWG. I think the key
> points we need to understand from our liaisons and others who have been
> involved is the status of proposal (including the CWG dependencies) and
> likely future timeline.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> > On Jan 10, 2016, at 12:44 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> >
> > Many thanks Alissa ..
> > The attached ccNSO council statement, on the 3rd draft proposal of the
> CCWG on ICANN Accountability, was shared on the CCWG mailing list ..
> > If you and colleagues agree, it would be good if someone could provide
> us with further details .. or is it already part of agenda item 1 below?
> >
> > Kind Regards
> > --Manal
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Alissa Cooper
> > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:10 PM
> > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> > Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
> >
> > Here is a proposed agenda for our call on Jan 13:
> >
> > 1. Update on CCWG work (CCWG liaisons)
> > 2. Potential ICG meeting at ICANN 55 (Chairs)
> >
> > Best,
> > Alissa
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> > <ccNSO COuncil statement on the CCWG 3rd Proposal.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/20160111/94eb4f19/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Tue Jan 12 10:47:27 2016
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:47:27 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-KpHwohgE-HOG=mHUH=vYqyCbEknWma8T1UynL1ySSDEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in><8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG><FED07741-CE63-47A5-AC00-24E8D819D6B2@cooperw.in>
	<CACNR4-KpHwohgE-HOG=mHUH=vYqyCbEknWma8T1UynL1ySSDEw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9FE377EC720B4814BAACFEEBF9C1BB2A@WUKPC>

Hi Alissa, Mohamed and Patrik,

since ICANN is already fixing travel schedules for the Marrakech meeting: can we assume the potential ICG meeting being between 05 an 10 March? Otherwise at least my schedule has to be revised.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Kavouss Arasteh 
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:17 PM
To: Alissa Cooper 
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda

Dear Alissa,
Certainly.
I just wanted to raise the need or otherwise tgo do so
Kavous


2016-01-11 19:04 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

  Hi Manal,

  I think this is part of item #1. Anyone who has been involved in the CCWG discussion or in developing input provided to the CCWG should feel free to provide an update.

  The CCWG has received input from a number of chartering organizations and of course all of the public commenters, including the CWG. I think the key points we need to understand from our liaisons and others who have been involved is the status of proposal (including the CWG dependencies) and likely future timeline.

  Thanks,
  Alissa


  > On Jan 10, 2016, at 12:44 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
  >
  > Many thanks Alissa ..
  > The attached ccNSO council statement, on the 3rd draft proposal of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability, was shared on the CCWG mailing list ..
  > If you and colleagues agree, it would be good if someone could provide us with further details .. or is it already part of agenda item 1 below?
  >
  > Kind Regards
  > --Manal
  >
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
  > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:10 PM
  > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
  > Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
  >
  > Here is a proposed agenda for our call on Jan 13:
  >
  > 1. Update on CCWG work (CCWG liaisons)
  > 2. Potential ICG meeting at ICANN 55 (Chairs)
  >
  > Best,
  > Alissa
  >
  > _______________________________________________
  > Internal-cg mailing list
  > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
  > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

  > <ccNSO COuncil statement on the CCWG 3rd Proposal.pdf>



  _______________________________________________
  Internal-cg mailing list
  Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
  http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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/20160112/0bee4a4c/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Tue Jan 12 10:52:10 2016
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:52:10 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <9FE377EC720B4814BAACFEEBF9C1BB2A@WUKPC>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<FED07741-CE63-47A5-AC00-24E8D819D6B2@cooperw.in>
	<CACNR4-KpHwohgE-HOG=mHUH=vYqyCbEknWma8T1UynL1ySSDEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9FE377EC720B4814BAACFEEBF9C1BB2A@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <D1806AFE-3A2D-402D-BA86-77157EEAC2A9@frobbit.se>

Yes, I think that is a safe bet.

It is, btw, also what ICANN has requested from ICG to ensure we maximise the likelihood ICANN follows the overall (new) structure of the ICANN meetings.

   Patrik

On 12 Jan 2016, at 11:47, WUKnoben wrote:

> Hi Alissa, Mohamed and Patrik,
>
> since ICANN is already fixing travel schedules for the Marrakech meeting: can we assume the potential ICG meeting being between 05 an 10 March? Otherwise at least my schedule has to be revised.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
> From: Kavouss Arasteh
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:17 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
>
> Dear Alissa,
> Certainly.
> I just wanted to raise the need or otherwise tgo do so
> Kavous
>
>
> 2016-01-11 19:04 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>
> Hi Manal,
>
> I think this is part of item #1. Anyone who has been involved in the CCWG discussion or in developing input provided to the CCWG should feel free to provide an update.
>
> The CCWG has received input from a number of chartering organizations and of course all of the public commenters, including the CWG. I think the key points we need to understand from our liaisons and others who have been involved is the status of proposal (including the CWG dependencies) and likely future timeline.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 2016, at 12:44 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> >
> > Many thanks Alissa ..
> > The attached ccNSO council statement, on the 3rd draft proposal of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability, was shared on the CCWG mailing list ..
> > If you and colleagues agree, it would be good if someone could provide us with further details .. or is it already part of agenda item 1 below?
> >
> > Kind Regards
> > --Manal
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper  > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:10 PM
> > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> > Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda  >
> > Here is a proposed agenda for our call on Jan 13:
> >
> > 1. Update on CCWG work (CCWG liaisons)
> > 2. Potential ICG meeting at ICANN 55 (Chairs)
> >
> > Best,
> > Alissa
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> > <ccNSO COuncil statement on the CCWG 3rd Proposal.pdf>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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/20160112/6c67bc05/attachment.sig>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Tue Jan 12 11:39:49 2016
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:39:49 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <D1806AFE-3A2D-402D-BA86-77157EEAC2A9@frobbit.se>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<FED07741-CE63-47A5-AC00-24E8D819D6B2@cooperw.in>
	<CACNR4-KpHwohgE-HOG=mHUH=vYqyCbEknWma8T1UynL1ySSDEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9FE377EC720B4814BAACFEEBF9C1BB2A@WUKPC>
	<D1806AFE-3A2D-402D-BA86-77157EEAC2A9@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <FA5442A01E9B4DE78858A996B07BDDEE@WUKPC>

Thanks Patrik!

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Patrik Fältström
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 11:52 AM
To: WUKnoben
Cc: Alissa Cooper ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda



From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Tue Jan 12 17:13:24 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:13:24 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <FA5442A01E9B4DE78858A996B07BDDEE@WUKPC>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<FED07741-CE63-47A5-AC00-24E8D819D6B2@cooperw.in>
	<CACNR4-KpHwohgE-HOG=mHUH=vYqyCbEknWma8T1UynL1ySSDEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9FE377EC720B4814BAACFEEBF9C1BB2A@WUKPC>
	<D1806AFE-3A2D-402D-BA86-77157EEAC2A9@frobbit.se>
	<FA5442A01E9B4DE78858A996B07BDDEE@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-LRzbgtPwuDRRzeKaB7Ed-W+oXMzfxF27zemG55m+jAaw@mail.gmail.com>

Alissa,
Pls advise whether ICANN has decided to support travelling for ICG Mmembers
in MARRAKESH?
rEGARDS
ka

2016-01-12 12:39 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:

> Thanks Patrik!
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 11:52 AM
> To: WUKnoben
> Cc: Alissa Cooper ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160112/d3ecd40c/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Tue Jan 12 19:20:53 2016
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:20:53 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-LRzbgtPwuDRRzeKaB7Ed-W+oXMzfxF27zemG55m+jAaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<FED07741-CE63-47A5-AC00-24E8D819D6B2@cooperw.in>
	<CACNR4-KpHwohgE-HOG=mHUH=vYqyCbEknWma8T1UynL1ySSDEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9FE377EC720B4814BAACFEEBF9C1BB2A@WUKPC>
	<D1806AFE-3A2D-402D-BA86-77157EEAC2A9@frobbit.se>
	<FA5442A01E9B4DE78858A996B07BDDEE@WUKPC>
	<CACNR4-LRzbgtPwuDRRzeKaB7Ed-W+oXMzfxF27zemG55m+jAaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <103E8D87-4667-46FC-865D-535F2334B0A9@frobbit.se>

No decision has been made, i.e. no support exists as of today.

If we decide on the call this week to have a meeting in Marrakesh, then we can request travel support and will report back accordingly. ICANN Staff is aware of us making decision this week.

   Best, Patrik

On 12 Jan 2016, at 18:13, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

> Alissa,
> Pls advise whether ICANN has decided to support travelling for ICG Mmembers in MARRAKESH?
> rEGARDS
> ka
>
> 2016-01-12 12:39 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
>
>> Thanks Patrik!
>>
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 11:52 AM
>> To: WUKnoben
>> Cc: Alissa Cooper ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160112/04a5f77c/attachment.sig>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Tue Jan 12 19:36:58 2016
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:36:58 -0500
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <103E8D87-4667-46FC-865D-535F2334B0A9@frobbit.se>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<FED07741-CE63-47A5-AC00-24E8D819D6B2@cooperw.in>
	<CACNR4-KpHwohgE-HOG=mHUH=vYqyCbEknWma8T1UynL1ySSDEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9FE377EC720B4814BAACFEEBF9C1BB2A@WUKPC>
	<D1806AFE-3A2D-402D-BA86-77157EEAC2A9@frobbit.se>
	<FA5442A01E9B4DE78858A996B07BDDEE@WUKPC>
	<CACNR4-LRzbgtPwuDRRzeKaB7Ed-W+oXMzfxF27zemG55m+jAaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<103E8D87-4667-46FC-865D-535F2334B0A9@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <569555DA.8080509@oracle.com>

Patrick:

Might our decision related to an in person meeting also be 
impacted/determined by whether any further public consultation is required?

Joe

On 1/12/2016 2:20 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> No decision has been made, i.e. no support exists as of today.
>
> If we decide on the call this week to have a meeting in Marrakesh, then we can request travel support and will report back accordingly. ICANN Staff is aware of us making decision this week.
>
>     Best, Patrik
>
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 18:13, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
>> Alissa,
>> Pls advise whether ICANN has decided to support travelling for ICG Mmembers in MARRAKESH?
>> rEGARDS
>> ka
>>
>> 2016-01-12 12:39 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
>>
>>> Thanks Patrik!
>>>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 11:52 AM
>>> To: WUKnoben
>>> Cc: Alissa Cooper ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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/20160112/d47e52ae/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Tue Jan 12 19:43:49 2016
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:43:49 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <569555DA.8080509@oracle.com>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<FED07741-CE63-47A5-AC00-24E8D819D6B2@cooperw.in>
	<CACNR4-KpHwohgE-HOG=mHUH=vYqyCbEknWma8T1UynL1ySSDEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9FE377EC720B4814BAACFEEBF9C1BB2A@WUKPC>
	<D1806AFE-3A2D-402D-BA86-77157EEAC2A9@frobbit.se>
	<FA5442A01E9B4DE78858A996B07BDDEE@WUKPC>
	<CACNR4-LRzbgtPwuDRRzeKaB7Ed-W+oXMzfxF27zemG55m+jAaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<103E8D87-4667-46FC-865D-535F2334B0A9@frobbit.se>
	<569555DA.8080509@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <AE890199-E9F2-4B2A-9EDD-59F1DF171659@frobbit.se>

On 12 Jan 2016, at 20:36, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:

> Might our decision related to an in person meeting also be impacted/determined by whether any further public consultation is required?

I think we as ICG must make a decision this week so that both ICANN and ICG members can realistically plan accordingly. We have to use whatever data and information we need to make that determination.

That said, we will not get meeting approved if it is not the case we can explain why we need the meeting, and honestly I hope none of us want a meeting unless it is useful and help us. 

Because of this, if some ICG member want to argue in favor of a meeting, please also explain not only why, but what result we hope from the meeting.

   Patrik

> Joe
>
> On 1/12/2016 2:20 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> No decision has been made, i.e. no support exists as of today.
>>
>> If we decide on the call this week to have a meeting in Marrakesh, then we can request travel support and will report back accordingly. ICANN Staff is aware of us making decision this week.
>>
>> Best, Patrik
>>
>> On 12 Jan 2016, at 18:13, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>
>>> Alissa,
>>> Pls advise whether ICANN has decided to support travelling for ICG Mmembers in MARRAKESH?
>>> rEGARDS
>>> ka
>>>
>>> 2016-01-12 12:39 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Patrik!
>>>>
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 11:52 AM
>>>> To: WUKnoben
>>>> Cc: Alissa Cooper ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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/20160112/193226c8/attachment.sig>

From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Tue Jan 12 21:54:16 2016
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:54:16 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <AE890199-E9F2-4B2A-9EDD-59F1DF171659@frobbit.se>
References: <0E671F5B-E875-4766-939F-2128E9BF878E@cooperw.in>
	<8b841d563a55471cb42688f840e42df8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<FED07741-CE63-47A5-AC00-24E8D819D6B2@cooperw.in>
	<CACNR4-KpHwohgE-HOG=mHUH=vYqyCbEknWma8T1UynL1ySSDEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9FE377EC720B4814BAACFEEBF9C1BB2A@WUKPC>
	<D1806AFE-3A2D-402D-BA86-77157EEAC2A9@frobbit.se>
	<FA5442A01E9B4DE78858A996B07BDDEE@WUKPC>
	<CACNR4-LRzbgtPwuDRRzeKaB7Ed-W+oXMzfxF27zemG55m+jAaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<103E8D87-4667-46FC-865D-535F2334B0A9@frobbit.se>
	<569555DA.8080509@oracle.com>
	<AE890199-E9F2-4B2A-9EDD-59F1DF171659@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <56957608.6070607@ripe.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 12.01.16 20:43 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Because of this, if some ICG member want to argue in favor of a
> meeting, please also explain not only why, but what result we hope
> from the meeting.

I strongly support that request. A proposed agenda including possible
formal actions are required to justify calling a meeting.

FYI: I would have to cancel some long standing commitments in order to
make it to Marrakesh.

Daniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=MnMo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Tue Jan 12 22:30:24 2016
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph.alhadeff)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:30:24 -0500
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
Message-ID: <werfvdbto9av7glodkvygmro.1452637824322@email.android.com>


    
I would add and why it can't be done by phone ....


Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> 
Date: 1/12/2016  4:54 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 12.01.16 20:43 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Because of this, if some ICG member want to argue in favor of a
> meeting, please also explain not only why, but what result we hope
> from the meeting.

I strongly support that request. A proposed agenda including possible
formal actions are required to justify calling a meeting.

FYI: I would have to cancel some long standing commitments in order to
make it to Marrakesh.

Daniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=MnMo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
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/20160112/0812c245/attachment.html>

From milton at gatech.edu  Tue Jan 12 23:51:49 2016
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 23:51:49 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
In-Reply-To: <werfvdbto9av7glodkvygmro.1452637824322@email.android.com>
References: <werfvdbto9av7glodkvygmro.1452637824322@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB703C4BBBB10C2D62B464C7DA1CA0@DM2PR07MB703.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

I am going to Marrakech anyway but I do not see the need for a f2f ICG meeting, as nice as it would be to see you all again.
It is theoretically possible for something to happen, between now and end February, that would provide some rationale for a meeting, but as of now I don’t see one.

--MM

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph.alhadeff
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 5:30 PM
To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda

I would add and why it can't be done by phone ....



Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net<mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>>
Date: 1/12/2016 4:54 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 12.01.16 20:43 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Because of this, if some ICG member want to argue in favor of a
> meeting, please also explain not only why, but what result we hope
> from the meeting.

I strongly support that request. A proposed agenda including possible
formal actions are required to justify calling a meeting.

FYI: I would have to cancel some long standing commitments in order to
make it to Marrakesh.

Daniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=MnMo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
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/20160112/f675508a/attachment.html>

From kdrazek at verisign.com  Wed Jan 13 20:27:00 2016
From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:27:00 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG-Stewardship Comments on CCWG-Accountability
 Third Draft Proposal
In-Reply-To: <014797d57953469e80b6a4b1bc44181b@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <D29D8B1C.259E9%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
	<010201d13c1e$6618c5c0$324a5140$@afilias.info>
	<D29DA335.25A14%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
	<014797d57953469e80b6a4b1bc44181b@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549A511B6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

Here's the CWG submission to the CCWG:

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 5:29 PM
To: GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)
Subject: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship Comments on CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

FYI
From: Grace Abuhamad

Dear CCWG-Accountability Chairs and Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship's Chartering Organizations,

Please find attached and below the CWG-Stewardship's comments on the CCWG-Accountability's Third Draft Proposal. These comments have been posted to the Public Comment forum and are being sent to you for information and wider circulation.

Thank you,
Lise & Jonathan

--


ICANN Cross Community Working Group Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)

Dear CCWG-Accountability members, participants and co-chairs,

We write in response to your group's recent publication<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56145016/CCWG%20Draft%20Proposal_Dec.01.2015.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1449011113000&api=v2> of your third draft proposal (the "Third Draft Proposal").  We have prepared this in our capacities as co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship).  References below are to the main body of the Third Draft Proposal, unless otherwise indicated.  We have also indicated below where we previously raised points in  response<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/55.%20%20CWG%20IANA%20Stewardship%20Comments.pdf?api=v2> to your group's publication<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460&preview=/53783460/54887691/CCWG-2ndDraft-FINAL-3August.pdf>of its second draft proposal (the "Second Draft Proposal").

First, we would once again like to confirm the quality of the ongoing coordination and collaboration between the co-chairs of our respective groups since the CCWG-Accountability commenced its work.  Each of our groups has been regularly engaged with and updated on the progress made, including the interdependency and interrelation between our work, and this has led to the regular exchange of key correspondence to develop and formalize the linkage.  As CWG-Stewardship co-chairs, we have discussed with the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs on a regular basis key aspects of the work of both groups.

The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816&preview=/53779816/54003507/FinalTransitionProposal_11June.pdf> submitted for approval to the chartering organizations on 11 June 2015 is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the CCWG-Accountability.  Specifically, as recognized in the Third Draft Proposal, the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal sets forth ICANN accountability requirements regarding Community Empowerment Mechanism, IANA Functions Budget, IANA Function Reviews, Separation Process, Appeals Mechanism, and Post-Transition IANA (PTI), as well as Fundamental Bylaws.  Therefore, this document is and should be viewed as an element of the agreed-upon working methods of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability in determining whether the Third Draft Proposal meets the conditions and requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal. In that regard, we kindly request confirmation that the CWG-Stewardship comments reflected in this document are addressed in the next version or variation of the CCWG-Accountability proposal in order to ensure that this next version or variation of the proposal addresses all of the CWG-Stewardship dependencies.

Our comments focus on the specific ICANN accountability requirements set forth in the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal:

1.               Community Empowerment Mechanism



The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires that the multistakeholder community be empowered with the following rights with respect to the ICANN Board, the exercise of which should be ensured by the creation of a stakeholder community/member group:



The ability to appoint and remove members of the ICANN Board and to recall the entire ICANN Board;

The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board's oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving:  (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (IFR) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget; and

The ability to approve amendments to ICANN's "Fundamental Bylaws," as described below.



Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates implementing a "Sole Designator" model, pursuant to which the community would be empowered to act as the Sole Designator to: (a) exercise the community powers described in the Third Draft Proposal, including the power to: (i) remove (in addition to appoint) individual ICANN Directors, and (ii) recall the entire ICANN Board, and (b) enforce decisions and powers of the Community Mechanism as the Sole Designator (i.e., the Empowered Community) through initiating a binding Independent Review Panel process, where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results.  In addition, the Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the community would be required to follow the engagement and escalation processes described in the proposal before exercising any of the community powers. Finally, with respect to actions involving individual Directors, the escalation process to remove a Director could only be used once during a Director's term if the process reaches the step of holding a community forum or above and then fails to remove the Director.



Conclusion- We believe that the community powers and community empowerment mechanism contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfy the CWG-Stewardship requirements relating to the community empowerment mechanism.  Although the community powers are in some cases less direct than in the Sole Member model contemplated by the Second Draft Proposal, we believe the CWG-Stewardship requirements can be met through the community powers and community empowerment mechanism contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal.



The CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal requires that the community "follow the engagement and escalation processes described in the proposal before exercising any of the community powers." This is a reasonable requirement but it creates a dependency on the usability of the engagement and escalation processes. If the community and in particular the SOs and ACs are unable to reasonably meet the requirements of those processes, then the community powers will lose their value. The very specific time requirements for various SO and AC actions in the escalation processes may be impossible or at best very difficult to meet; if more than one SO/AC cannot act within the tight time limits, the process will be halted.



The CWG-Stewardship recognizes that the escalation processes need to happen in a timely manner but they must also allow sufficient time to accommodate the diverse and complex makeup of SOs and ACs. A key question that should be asked of SOs and ACs is this: what is the minimum time they need to respond to a critical issue that is also very time sensitive? To be more specific, can they respond in 7 days without compromising their bottom-up, multistakeholder model? If they cannot, then the CCWG-Accountability recommended empowerment mechanisms do not meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements.  This should not be a hard problem to solve.  Time restrictions that are deemed to be too short could be lengthened a little and/or the restrictions could be defined in a more flexible manner to allow for brief extensions when reasonably required.



2.               ICANN Budget and IANA Functions Budget



The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires that the community have the ability to approve or veto the ICANN Budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect.  The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN's Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community.



In the final transition proposal, the CWG-Stewardship also recommends that the IANA Functions Operator's comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN's operating plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed.  Under the final transition proposal, an itemization of IANA costs would include:  direct costs for the operation of the IANA Functions, direct costs for shared resources and support functions allocation.  Furthermore, these costs should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific function to the project level and below as needed.  PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an annual basis.  PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services.  It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA Functions Budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN Budget. The CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for an IANA Functions Operations-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review.  It is anticipated that the IANA Functions Operations Budget review will include a consultation process with relevant and potentially impacted IANA customers.



Comment - The Third Draft Proposal clarifies that the community would have new powers to reject: (a) ICANN's Annual Operating Plan and Budget, (b) the IANA Functions Operations Budget, (c) ICANN's Five-Year Strategic Plan and (d) ICANN's Five-Year Operating Plan, in each case after approval by the ICANN Board but before they take effect.  The Third Draft Proposal specifies that these powers can only be exercised after extensive community discussions and through mandatory escalation processes.



The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that prior to the ICANN Board approving a budget or strategic/operating plan, the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board consults with the community.  The Third Draft Proposal further specifies that the community could only challenge a budget or strategic/operating plan if there are significant issues brought up in the engagement phase that were not addressed prior to approval.



The Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN and IANA Functions Operations Budgets would be considered separately by the community so that a rejection of the ICANN Budget would not automatically result in a rejection of the IANA Functions Operations Budget, and a rejection of the IANA Functions Operations Budget would not serve as a rejection of the ICANN Budget.  It also proposes that if the community power is exercised to reject the ICANN Budget or the IANA Functions Operations Budget, a caretaker budget would be enacted.  The Third Draft Proposal notes that details regarding the caretaker budget are currently under development.



As we noted in our comment letter on the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not provide for "approval" by the community of the ICANN Budget and/or IANA Functions Operations Budget, but rather provides for negative authority in the form of a decision by the community to reject the ICANN Budget and/or IANA Functions Operations Budget.  As we also noted in that comment letter, the CWG-Stewardship acknowledges that the community's ability to reject the ICANN Budget and/or the IANA Functions Operations Budget will meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements and that community approval is not required.



We note that unlike the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not specifically address: (i) the CWG-Stewardship's requirement that the budget be transparent with respect to the IANA Functions' operating costs or (ii) the specific grounds upon which the community could reject a budget or plan.  In addition, as we noted in our comment letter on the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not specifically address the timeframe for when budgets should be submitted.



Conclusion- Similar to our conclusion in our response on the Second Draft Proposal, overall we believe that the Third Draft Proposal's specifications with respect to the community power to reject budgets is both necessary and consistent with the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal; however, we require that the CCWG-Accountability proposal or the implementation process address the matters that are not sufficiently specified in the Third Draft Proposal (i.e., those relating to budget transparency, grounds for rejection of a budget/plan, timing of budget preparation and development of the caretaker budget, each of which were described in the Second Draft Proposal).  In addition, we note, that the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group) is required to develop a proposed process for the IANA Functions Operations-specific budget review. We require that the proposal specifically acknowledge this.



3.               IFR



The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires the creation of an IFR which is empowered to conduct periodic and special reviews of the IANA names function.  The CWG-Stewardship proposal contemplates the ability of the community to exercise oversight with respect to ICANN Board decisions on recommendations resulting from an IFR or Special IFR by reviewing and approving those ICANN Board decisions.



Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates incorporating the review system defined in the Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN's Bylaws.  The Third Draft Proposal specifies that the IFR and Special IFR would be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws based on the requirements detailed by the CWG-Stewardship, and notes that it is anticipated that the ICANN Bylaw drafting process would include the CWG-Stewardship.  The Third Draft Proposal also provides that the community be empowered to reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA names function.  Prior to making a decision relating to IFRs, the Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board must have consulted with the community.



Conclusion- We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirement relating to the IFR.  The community's ability to reject ICANN Board decisions on recommendations resulting from an IFR or Special IFR will meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements, provided that the final version of the CCWG-Accountability proposal provide that the right to reject can be exercised an unlimited number of times.



4.               Customer Standing Committee (CSC)



The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires the creation of a CSC that is empowered to monitor the performance of the IANA names function and escalate non-remediated issues to the ccNSO and GNSO.  The ccNSO and GNSO should be empowered to address matters escalated by the CSC.



Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the CSC will be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws. We expect that provisions incorporating the CSC into the Bylaws would be overseen by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group).



Conclusion- We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirement relating to the CSC, provided that the ICANN Bylaw drafting process will continue to include involvement by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group).



5.               Post-Transition IANA (PTI)



The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal contemplates the formation of a PTI as a new legal entity.  PTI will have ICANN as its sole member and PTI will therefore be a controlled affiliate of ICANN.  As a result, the ICANN Bylaws will need to include governance provisions related to PTI, in particular as it relates to ICANN's role as the sole member of PTI.



Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that governance provisions related to PTI will be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws as Fundamental Bylaws.  We note that the Second Draft Proposal contemplated that specifications with respect to PTI governance provisions would be based on requirements to be detailed by the CWG-Stewardship.  While this language was not included in the Third Draft Proposal, we continue to expect that PTI governance provisions would be overseen by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group).



Conclusion- We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirement relating to PTI, provided that the ICANN Bylaw drafting process and related PTI governance documents will continue to include involvement by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group).



6.               Separation Process



The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal contemplates that a Special IFR will be empowered to determine that a separation process between ICANN and PTI is necessary and, if so, to recommend that a Separation Cross-Community Working Group (SCWG) be established to review the identified issues and make recommendations.  Annex L of the CWG-Stewardship final proposal sets forth more detailed information as to approval requirements with respect to the formation of an SCWG and approval of SCWG recommendations, including any selection of a new IANA Functions Operator or any other separation process, in each case these actions require approval by a community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process.



Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the separation process required by the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal will be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws.  The Third Draft Proposal describes the CWG-Stewardship requirement of a procedure to implement a separation process should it arise from a Special IFR, including provisions for the creation of an SCWG, its functions and voting thresholds for approving the end-result of the SCWG process.



The Third Draft Proposal specifies that the community be empowered to reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA names function; including the triggering of PTI separation.  Prior to making a decision relating to IFRs, including the triggering of PTI separation, the Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board must consult with the community.



Conclusion- We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirements relating to the separation process.  The community's ability to reject ICANN Board decisions on Special IFR/SCWG recommendations, which would include the selection of a new IANA Functions Operator or any other separation process will meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements, provided that (i) the final version of the CCWG-Accountability proposal provide that the right to reject can be exercised an unlimited number of times, and (ii) the ICANN Bylaw drafting process and related the Separation Process will continue to include involvement by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group).



7.               Appeals Mechanism



The CWG-Stewardship final proposal contemplates an appeals mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel (IRP), for issues relating to the IANA names function.  For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an IRP.  The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition through the appropriate processes.



Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates significant enhancements of ICANN's existing appeals mechanisms, including the IRP.  It is proposed that the IRP will be available to TLD managers to challenge ICANN decisions including with respect to issues relating to the IANA names function (with the exception of ccTLD delegations and redelegations, which appeals mechanisms are to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition, in coordination with other parties), and that the Empowered Community can use the IRP to challenge an ICANN Board decision if it believes that the ICANN Board is in breach of its Articles or Bylaws (for example, if the ICANN Board determines not to accept the decision of the Empowered Community to use one of its community powers or if the ICANN Board determines not to implement a recommendation of the IFR team).



The Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly contemplate that the IRP would hear claims relating to actions (or inactions) of PTI.  The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires an independent review process for issues relating to the IANA names function. This is intended to be a process that is independent of ICANN and PTI, and that would address actions (or inactions) of PTI.
Conclusion- As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amended without community approval). Regardless of approach, the CWG-Stewardship requires that this dependency be addressed in the final CCWG-Accountability proposal in order for the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the conditions of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal have been adequately addressed.

8.               Fundamental Bylaws



The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal contemplates that all the foregoing mechanisms will be provided for in the ICANN Bylaws as "Fundamental Bylaws."  A "Fundamental Bylaw" may only be amended with the prior approval of the Empowered Community and may require a higher approval threshold than typical Bylaw amendments (for example, a supermajority vote).



Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the following, among others, would be made Fundamental Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1:

Each of the community powers (including in relation to ICANN and IANA Functions Operations Budgets, ICANN Director removal/Board recall, and amendments to Fundamental Bylaws);

The Empowered Community and the rules by which it is governed;

The framework for the IRP;

The IFR, Special IFR and the separation process;

The CSC; and

PTI governance.



Prior to approving any Bylaw amendment, the Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board must consult with the community.  The Third Draft Proposal specifies that establishing new Fundamental Bylaws or amending or removing Fundamental Bylaws will require: (i) approval by the ICANN Board (with a three-quarters vote of all standing Directors) and (ii) a decision by the Empowered Community to exercise the Community Power to approve changes to fundamental Bylaws.  The Third Draft Proposal also specifies the threshold for the exercise of the Community Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws.

Conclusion- We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirements relating to Fundamental Bylaws.

Looking forward, we continue to be committed to retaining the link between the work of the two groups.  Thank you for taking the lead in responding to the CWG-Stewardship requirements in the Third Draft Proposal and indeed for all related work.  As we have communicated with your group on several occasions, we rely on your work and our trust in the work of your group is vital in permitting us to focus on the essential aspects of our work on the stewardship transition. We look forward to your confirmation that the issues raised above will be resolved in the CCWG-Accountability Proposal.

Best regards,



Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson

Co-chairs, CWG-Stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160113/f43f6958/attachment.html>

From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Wed Jan 13 21:28:14 2016
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:28:14 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we
	Submit
Message-ID: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>


During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should
(consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
transmission to NTIA.

After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.

Reasons:

First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of
the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears to be
bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG submits
we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a
substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well
die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create
the perception of partial agreement and success.

Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
discussion about our work product.

I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion
by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time
to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to
not just sit and wait.

So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider to
release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they agree
we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question moot
until the situation changes again.

Daniel



From Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk  Wed Jan 13 21:42:55 2016
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:42:55 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that
	we	Submit
In-Reply-To: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I am worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any advantage in the process.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we Submit


During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for transmission to NTIA.

After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.

Reasons:

First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears to be bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG submits we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create the perception of partial agreement and success.

Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the discussion about our work product.

I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to not just sit and wait.

So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider to release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they agree we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question moot until the situation changes again.

Daniel


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


From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Wed Jan 13 21:50:06 2016
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:50:06 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we
 Submit
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <5696C68E.6000104@ripe.net>

Martin,

I do not share your worry about our credibility. The reasons I gave,
specifically the main reason, support that we act in good faith and with
the common interest of a successful transition in mind.

Daniel

On 13.01.16 22:42 , Martin Boyle wrote:
> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I am worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any advantage in the process.
> 
> Martin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we Submit
> 
> 
> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for transmission to NTIA.
> 
> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.
> 
> Reasons:
> 
> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears to be bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG submits we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create the perception of partial agreement and success.
> 
> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the discussion about our work product.
> 
> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to not just sit and wait.
> 
> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider to release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they agree we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question moot until the situation changes again.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jan 13 21:53:34 2016
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 04:53:34 +0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 25: Attendance list and Chat transcript
Message-ID: <021b01d14e4c$de84a110$9b8de330$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the attendance list (below) and chat transcript (attached) for
ICG Call 25.  Please let me know if you note any discrepancies.

 

Attendance list:

Alan Barrett (NRO)

Alissa Cooper (IETF)

Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC)

Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC)

Jari Arkko (IETF)

Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC)

Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS)

Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)

Keith Davidson (ccNSO)

Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries)

Lynn St Amour (IAB)

Manal Ismail (GAC)

Mary Uduma (ccNSO)

Martin Boyle (ccNSO)

Michael Niebel (GAC)

Milton Muller (GNSO)

Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC)

Narelle Clark (ISOC)

Patrik Fältström (SSAC)

Russ Housley (IAB)

Russ Mundy (SSAC)

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO)

Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO)

 

Liaisons

Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison)

 

Apologies 

Demi Getschko (ISOC)

Hartmut Glaser (ASO)

James Bladel (GNSO)

Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries)

Kuo-wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison)

Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC)

Paul Wilson (NRO)

Thomas Schneider (GAC)

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160114/8a77f25c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Call 25 chat transcript.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 373443 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160114/8a77f25c/attachment.pdf>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Jan 13 22:05:52 2016
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 23:05:52 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
	thatwe	Submit
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <97AFEBD282C44FBAAF4ED9A80F66D082@WUKPC>

I fully agree with Martin.

The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their 
dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal ready 
to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Martin Boyle
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe 
Submit

As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and that 
is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG proposal.  I 
cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or allow the decision on 
completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I am worried that a request as 
you identify it, Daniel, would not help our credibility as impartial 
Coordination Group, without conferring any advantage in the process.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
Daniel Karrenberg
Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we 
Submit


During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should 
(consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for transmission to 
NTIA.

After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an inquiry 
with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.

Reasons:

First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of the 
transition process. From a distance this whole process appears to be bogged 
down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG submits we can 
project that the operational communities in fact agree on a substantial part 
of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well die from the 
perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create the perception of 
partial agreement and success.

Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the discussion 
about our work product.

I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion by 
submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time to 
formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to not just 
sit and wait.

So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider to 
release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they agree we 
can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question moot until 
the situation changes again.

Daniel


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

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



From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Wed Jan 13 22:23:51 2016
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 23:23:51 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe
 Submit
In-Reply-To: <97AFEBD282C44FBAAF4ED9A80F66D082@WUKPC>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<97AFEBD282C44FBAAF4ED9A80F66D082@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <5696CE77.5090800@ripe.net>

If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all
for it.

Daniel

On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
> I fully agree with Martin.
> 
> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their
> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal
> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
> thatwe Submit
> 
> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and
> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG
> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or
> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I am
> worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our
> credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any
> advantage in the process.
> 
> Martin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we
> Submit
> 
> 
> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should
> (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
> transmission to NTIA.
> 
> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.
> 
> Reasons:
> 
> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of
> the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears to be
> bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG submits
> we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a
> substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well
> die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create
> the perception of partial agreement and success.
> 
> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
> discussion about our work product.
> 
> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion
> by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time
> to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to
> not just sit and wait.
> 
> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider to
> release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they agree
> we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question moot
> until the situation changes again.
> 
> 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 alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jan 13 22:53:52 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:53:52 -0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe
	Submit
In-Reply-To: <5696CE77.5090800@ripe.net>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<97AFEBD282C44FBAAF4ED9A80F66D082@WUKPC>
	<5696CE77.5090800@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <696C9EE5-5563-4C90-BED3-0458017AB0FE@cooperw.in>

We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago to the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does and does not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a further update to its proposal, so I don’t see value in asking the CWG about the dependencies now. We can read their comments and get a very precise understanding of how they currently view the dependencies.

Alissa

> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all
> for it.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
>> I fully agree with Martin.
>> 
>> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their
>> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal
>> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
>> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
>> thatwe Submit
>> 
>> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and
>> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG
>> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or
>> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I am
>> worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our
>> credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any
>> advantage in the process.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Daniel Karrenberg
>> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we
>> Submit
>> 
>> 
>> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should
>> (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
>> transmission to NTIA.
>> 
>> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
>> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.
>> 
>> Reasons:
>> 
>> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of
>> the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears to be
>> bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG submits
>> we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a
>> substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well
>> die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create
>> the perception of partial agreement and success.
>> 
>> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
>> discussion about our work product.
>> 
>> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion
>> by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time
>> to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to
>> not just sit and wait.
>> 
>> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider to
>> release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they agree
>> we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question moot
>> until the situation changes again.
>> 
>> Daniel
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Jan 14 02:52:52 2016
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:52:52 +0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 25: Action items and decisions taken
Message-ID: <025701d14e76$aeb96c70$0c2c4550$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

As per the chairs, below please find the actions items and decisions taken
during ICG Call 25.

 

Decisions Taken

1. ICG members to continue discussion on internal-cg mailing list on:

  i. Whether the ICG needs to send a note to CCWG-Accountability, ICANN
board, or NTIA.

  ii. Whether to forward the combined proposal to the ICANN board with the
consent of CWG-Stewardship.

2. ICG will not have an official face-to-face meeting at ICANN 55.

 

Action Item:

1. ICG chairs to discuss future ICG call scheduling and get back to ICG
members on this.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160114/ed17d8cb/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Jan 14 07:18:03 2016
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:18:03 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
	thatwe	Submit
In-Reply-To: <696C9EE5-5563-4C90-BED3-0458017AB0FE@cooperw.in>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<97AFEBD282C44FBAAF4ED9A80F66D082@WUKPC>	<5696CE77.5090800@ripe.net>
	<696C9EE5-5563-4C90-BED3-0458017AB0FE@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <363d80cddc2641e2846554471edf4cf7@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Daniel for your message .. 
I agree with the collective responses by Martin, Wolf-Ulrich and Alissa .. 
Given the clear dependency between both proposals, we have committed to seek CWG confirmation that their requirements have been met by the CCWG proposal before final submission ..
- this dependency still exists
- there is an ongoing dialogue between the CWG & the CCWG on unmet requirements 
- we have CWG's comments on the CCWG proposal kindly circulated by Keith (I have to admit not reading them yet)
So I don't see any changes that would make us ask the CWG about submitting the proposal to the ICANN board, as we already know dependencies are not yet fully resolved; nor can we ask about the status of the interdependencies yet, until we read/discuss CWG's comments at hand ..

Kind Regards
--Manal 

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:54 AM
To: Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe Submit

We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago to the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does and does not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a further update to its proposal, so I don't see value in asking the CWG about the dependencies now. We can read their comments and get a very precise understanding of how they currently view the dependencies.

Alissa

> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all 
> for it.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
>> I fully agree with Martin.
>> 
>> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their 
>> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal 
>> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
>> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree 
>> thatwe Submit
>> 
>> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and 
>> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG 
>> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or 
>> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I 
>> am worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help 
>> our credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring 
>> any advantage in the process.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Daniel Karrenberg
>> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that 
>> we Submit
>> 
>> 
>> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we 
>> should (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for 
>> transmission to NTIA.
>> 
>> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an 
>> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.
>> 
>> Reasons:
>> 
>> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress 
>> of the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears 
>> to be bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If 
>> ICG submits we can project that the operational communities in fact 
>> agree on a substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole 
>> process may well die from the perception of stagnation and 
>> complications. Let us create the perception of partial agreement and success.
>> 
>> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the 
>> discussion about our work product.
>> 
>> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional 
>> discretion by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them 
>> some extra time to formally consider our proposal. And that is a 
>> third good reason to not just sit and wait.
>> 
>> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider 
>> to release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they 
>> agree we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the 
>> question moot until the situation changes again.
>> 
>> Daniel
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


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



From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 07:37:45 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 08:37:45 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe
	Submit
In-Reply-To: <363d80cddc2641e2846554471edf4cf7@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<97AFEBD282C44FBAAF4ED9A80F66D082@WUKPC>
	<5696CE77.5090800@ripe.net>
	<696C9EE5-5563-4C90-BED3-0458017AB0FE@cooperw.in>
	<363d80cddc2641e2846554471edf4cf7@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-JCZ9zmKT9qb+W+wOU1d51iTuM4ge3ot5Ci4oaribzF5w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
I also agree with Wolf, Martin and Mana
 AS WELL AS WITH aLISSA
rEGARDS
kAVOUSS

2016-01-14 8:18 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:

> Thanks Daniel for your message ..
> I agree with the collective responses by Martin, Wolf-Ulrich and Alissa ..
> Given the clear dependency between both proposals, we have committed to
> seek CWG confirmation that their requirements have been met by the CCWG
> proposal before final submission ..
> - this dependency still exists
> - there is an ongoing dialogue between the CWG & the CCWG on unmet
> requirements
> - we have CWG's comments on the CCWG proposal kindly circulated by Keith
> (I have to admit not reading them yet)
> So I don't see any changes that would make us ask the CWG about submitting
> the proposal to the ICANN board, as we already know dependencies are not
> yet fully resolved; nor can we ask about the status of the
> interdependencies yet, until we read/discuss CWG's comments at hand ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:54 AM
> To: Daniel Karrenberg
> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe
> Submit
>
> We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago to
> the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does and does
> not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a further update to
> its proposal, so I don't see value in asking the CWG about the dependencies
> now. We can read their comments and get a very precise understanding of how
> they currently view the dependencies.
>
> Alissa
>
> > On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <
> daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> >
> > If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all
> > for it.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
> >> I fully agree with Martin.
> >>
> >> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their
> >> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal
> >> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
> >>
> >> Best regards
> >>
> >> Wolf-Ulrich
> >>
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
> >> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
> >> thatwe Submit
> >>
> >> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and
> >> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG
> >> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or
> >> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I
> >> am worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help
> >> our credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring
> >> any advantage in the process.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
> >> Of Daniel Karrenberg
> >> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
> >> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that
> >> we Submit
> >>
> >>
> >> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we
> >> should (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
> >> transmission to NTIA.
> >>
> >> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
> >> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.
> >>
> >> Reasons:
> >>
> >> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress
> >> of the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears
> >> to be bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If
> >> ICG submits we can project that the operational communities in fact
> >> agree on a substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole
> >> process may well die from the perception of stagnation and
> >> complications. Let us create the perception of partial agreement and
> success.
> >>
> >> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
> >> discussion about our work product.
> >>
> >> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional
> >> discretion by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them
> >> some extra time to formally consider our proposal. And that is a
> >> third good reason to not just sit and wait.
> >>
> >> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider
> >> to release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they
> >> agree we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the
> >> question moot until the situation changes again.
> >>
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160114/5ca4598e/attachment.html>

From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Thu Jan 14 07:48:14 2016
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 08:48:14 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe
 Submit
In-Reply-To: <696C9EE5-5563-4C90-BED3-0458017AB0FE@cooperw.in>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<97AFEBD282C44FBAAF4ED9A80F66D082@WUKPC> <5696CE77.5090800@ripe.net>
	<696C9EE5-5563-4C90-BED3-0458017AB0FE@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <569752BE.4080108@ripe.net>

OK. There is obviously no chance for consensus to move ahead and thus we
continue to wait as agreed previously. At least we now have on record
that we considered alternatives.

Daniel

On 13.01.16 23:53 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
> We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago to the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does and does not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a further update to its proposal, so I don’t see value in asking the CWG about the dependencies now. We can read their comments and get a very precise understanding of how they currently view the dependencies.
> 
> Alissa
> 
>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>
>> If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all
>> for it.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
>>> I fully agree with Martin.
>>>
>>> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their
>>> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal
>>> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
>>> thatwe Submit
>>>
>>> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and
>>> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG
>>> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or
>>> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I am
>>> worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our
>>> credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any
>>> advantage in the process.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Daniel Karrenberg
>>> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we
>>> Submit
>>>
>>>
>>> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should
>>> (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
>>> transmission to NTIA.
>>>
>>> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
>>> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.
>>>
>>> Reasons:
>>>
>>> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of
>>> the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears to be
>>> bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG submits
>>> we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a
>>> substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well
>>> die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create
>>> the perception of partial agreement and success.
>>>
>>> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
>>> discussion about our work product.
>>>
>>> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion
>>> by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time
>>> to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to
>>> not just sit and wait.
>>>
>>> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider to
>>> release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they agree
>>> we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question moot
>>> until the situation changes again.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 


From mnuduma at yahoo.com  Thu Jan 14 07:54:52 2016
From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 08:54:52 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
	thatwe	Submit
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-JCZ9zmKT9qb+W+wOU1d51iTuM4ge3ot5Ci4oaribzF5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<97AFEBD282C44FBAAF4ED9A80F66D082@WUKPC>
	<5696CE77.5090800@ripe.net>
	<696C9EE5-5563-4C90-BED3-0458017AB0FE@cooperw.in>
	<363d80cddc2641e2846554471edf4cf7@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<CACNR4-JCZ9zmKT9qb+W+wOU1d51iTuM4ge3ot5Ci4oaribzF5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160114075452.5267534.1952.41296@yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160114/e6748fa4/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Thu Jan 14 08:21:45 2016
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:21:45 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe
	Submit
In-Reply-To: <569752BE.4080108@ripe.net>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net><4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk><97AFEBD282C44FBAAF4ED9A80F66D082@WUKPC>
	<5696CE77.5090800@ripe.net><696C9EE5-5563-4C90-BED3-0458017AB0FE@cooperw.in>
	<569752BE.4080108@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <DE9A432C6D0F4C64A7BF4A44983D6417@WUKPC>

I understand this being independent from the question whether we should send 
a note to CCWG (and board (and NTIA)) - as Jari suggested - appealing for a 
timely compromise solution.

I'm supporting this idea which would also signal that we're not just waiting 
(or even worse being in "sleeping mode") rather than closely following the 
debate and that ICG is deeply interested in the overall success of the 
transition.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Daniel Karrenberg
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:48 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe 
Submit

OK. There is obviously no chance for consensus to move ahead and thus we
continue to wait as agreed previously. At least we now have on record
that we considered alternatives.

Daniel

On 13.01.16 23:53 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
> We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago to 
> the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does and does 
> not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a further update to 
> its proposal, so I don’t see value in asking the CWG about the 
> dependencies now. We can read their comments and get a very precise 
> understanding of how they currently view the dependencies.
>
> Alissa
>
>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg 
>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>
>> If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all
>> for it.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
>>> I fully agree with Martin.
>>>
>>> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their
>>> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal
>>> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
>>> thatwe Submit
>>>
>>> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and
>>> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG
>>> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or
>>> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I am
>>> worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our
>>> credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any
>>> advantage in the process.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Daniel Karrenberg
>>> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we
>>> Submit
>>>
>>>
>>> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should
>>> (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
>>> transmission to NTIA.
>>>
>>> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
>>> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.
>>>
>>> Reasons:
>>>
>>> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of
>>> the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears to be
>>> bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG submits
>>> we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a
>>> substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well
>>> die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create
>>> the perception of partial agreement and success.
>>>
>>> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
>>> discussion about our work product.
>>>
>>> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion
>>> by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time
>>> to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to
>>> not just sit and wait.
>>>
>>> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider to
>>> release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they agree
>>> we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question moot
>>> until the situation changes again.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>

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



From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Thu Jan 14 08:36:05 2016
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:36:05 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe
 Submit
In-Reply-To: <DE9A432C6D0F4C64A7BF4A44983D6417@WUKPC>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<97AFEBD282C44FBAAF4ED9A80F66D082@WUKPC> <5696CE77.5090800@ripe.net>
	<696C9EE5-5563-4C90-BED3-0458017AB0FE@cooperw.in>
	<569752BE.4080108@ripe.net>
	<DE9A432C6D0F4C64A7BF4A44983D6417@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <56975DF5.1030606@ripe.net>

Making such statements is clearly outside our mandate as a coordination
group. It is up to the operational communities who contributed input to
us to make such statements. It may also be up to the bodies who sent us
as individuals. But it is certainly not up to us.

Besides it being clearly outside our mandate I also do not see any
reason for us to do so and any way this would influence the course of
events either.

Daniel

On 14.01.16 9:21 , WUKnoben wrote:
> I understand this being independent from the question whether we should
> send a note to CCWG (and board (and NTIA)) - as Jari suggested -
> appealing for a timely compromise solution.
> 
> I'm supporting this idea which would also signal that we're not just
> waiting (or even worse being in "sleeping mode") rather than closely
> following the debate and that ICG is deeply interested in the overall
> success of the transition.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:48 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
> thatwe Submit
> 
> OK. There is obviously no chance for consensus to move ahead and thus we
> continue to wait as agreed previously. At least we now have on record
> that we considered alternatives.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 13.01.16 23:53 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago
>> to the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does
>> and does not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a
>> further update to its proposal, so I don’t see value in asking the CWG
>> about the dependencies now. We can read their comments and get a very
>> precise understanding of how they currently view the dependencies.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg
>>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all
>>> for it.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
>>>> I fully agree with Martin.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their
>>>> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal
>>>> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
>>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
>>>> thatwe Submit
>>>>
>>>> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and
>>>> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG
>>>> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or
>>>> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I am
>>>> worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our
>>>> credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any
>>>> advantage in the process.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Daniel Karrenberg
>>>> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
>>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we
>>>> Submit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should
>>>> (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
>>>> transmission to NTIA.
>>>>
>>>> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
>>>> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did
>>>> submit.
>>>>
>>>> Reasons:
>>>>
>>>> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of
>>>> the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears
>>>> to be
>>>> bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG
>>>> submits
>>>> we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a
>>>> substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well
>>>> die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create
>>>> the perception of partial agreement and success.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
>>>> discussion about our work product.
>>>>
>>>> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion
>>>> by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time
>>>> to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to
>>>> not just sit and wait.
>>>>
>>>> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider to
>>>> release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they agree
>>>> we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question
>>>> moot
>>>> until the situation changes again.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 


From Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk  Thu Jan 14 08:44:10 2016
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 08:44:10 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we
 Submit
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFCC57@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Again I'm not sure how helpful this would be in the form of a bald statement, given the controversy in CCWG-Accountability (and in some of the ICANN communities) on the real meaning of deadlines.  If I remember correctly there was a useful exchange last night about how this could be approached, but I'm not sure what the conclusion was.

Would this be a useful point of dialogue between ICG, CCWG-Accountability and possibly CWG-Stewardship chairs to look at the expected timescales, not just of the time for the proposal work to be completed, but also on implementation timeframe where details are firming up nicely in responding to the CWG-Stewardship recommendations.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: 14 January 2016 08:22
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>; Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe Submit

I understand this being independent from the question whether we should send a note to CCWG (and board (and NTIA)) - as Jari suggested - appealing for a timely compromise solution.

I'm supporting this idea which would also signal that we're not just waiting (or even worse being in "sleeping mode") rather than closely following the debate and that ICG is deeply interested in the overall success of the transition.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Daniel Karrenberg
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:48 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe Submit

OK. There is obviously no chance for consensus to move ahead and thus we continue to wait as agreed previously. At least we now have on record that we considered alternatives.

Daniel

On 13.01.16 23:53 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
> We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago 
> to the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does 
> and does not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a 
> further update to its proposal, so I don't see value in asking the CWG 
> about the dependencies now. We can read their comments and get a very 
> precise understanding of how they currently view the dependencies.
>
> Alissa
>
>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg 
>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>
>> If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all 
>> for it.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
>>> I fully agree with Martin.
>>>
>>> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of 
>>> their dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the 
>>> proposal ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree 
>>> thatwe Submit
>>>
>>> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, 
>>> and that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the 
>>> CWG proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view 
>>> or allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  
>>> I am worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not 
>>> help our credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without 
>>> conferring any advantage in the process.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf 
>>> Of Daniel Karrenberg
>>> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that 
>>> we Submit
>>>
>>>
>>> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we 
>>> should (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for 
>>> transmission to NTIA.
>>>
>>> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an 
>>> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.
>>>
>>> Reasons:
>>>
>>> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress 
>>> of the transition process. From a distance this whole process 
>>> appears to be bogged down because the Internet community cannot 
>>> agree.  If ICG submits we can project that the operational 
>>> communities in fact agree on a substantial part of the *IANA* 
>>> transition. This whole process may well die from the perception of 
>>> stagnation and complications. Let us create the perception of partial agreement and success.
>>>
>>> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the 
>>> discussion about our work product.
>>>
>>> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional 
>>> discretion by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them 
>>> some extra time to formally consider our proposal. And that is a 
>>> third good reason to not just sit and wait.
>>>
>>> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider 
>>> to release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they 
>>> agree we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the 
>>> question moot until the situation changes again.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>

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


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


From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Thu Jan 14 11:45:50 2016
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 06:45:50 -0500
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe
 Submit
In-Reply-To: <DE9A432C6D0F4C64A7BF4A44983D6417@WUKPC>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<97AFEBD282C44FBAAF4ED9A80F66D082@WUKPC> <5696CE77.5090800@ripe.net>
	<696C9EE5-5563-4C90-BED3-0458017AB0FE@cooperw.in>
	<569752BE.4080108@ripe.net>
	<DE9A432C6D0F4C64A7BF4A44983D6417@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <56978A6E.7060707@oracle.com>

While all of us share the concern of the timeframe slipping, we do not 
have a consensus on the appropriateness of ICG sending a letter; I too 
find it outside of our remit.  Perhaps each of the communities we 
represent, if so inclined, should draft those letters as a way for the 
participants to the negotiation to be reminded of the importance of 
timely conclusion.

Joe

On 1/14/2016 3:21 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
> I understand this being independent from the question whether we 
> should send a note to CCWG (and board (and NTIA)) - as Jari suggested 
> - appealing for a timely compromise solution.
>
> I'm supporting this idea which would also signal that we're not just 
> waiting (or even worse being in "sleeping mode") rather than closely 
> following the debate and that ICG is deeply interested in the overall 
> success of the transition.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:48 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree 
> thatwe Submit
>
> OK. There is obviously no chance for consensus to move ahead and thus we
> continue to wait as agreed previously. At least we now have on record
> that we considered alternatives.
>
> Daniel
>
> On 13.01.16 23:53 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago 
>> to the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does 
>> and does not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a 
>> further update to its proposal, so I don’t see value in asking the 
>> CWG about the dependencies now. We can read their comments and get a 
>> very precise understanding of how they currently view the dependencies.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg 
>>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all
>>> for it.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
>>>> I fully agree with Martin.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their
>>>> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal
>>>> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
>>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
>>>> thatwe Submit
>>>>
>>>> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and
>>>> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG
>>>> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or
>>>> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  
>>>> I am
>>>> worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our
>>>> credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any
>>>> advantage in the process.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Daniel Karrenberg
>>>> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
>>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree 
>>>> that we
>>>> Submit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should
>>>> (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
>>>> transmission to NTIA.
>>>>
>>>> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
>>>> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did 
>>>> submit.
>>>>
>>>> Reasons:
>>>>
>>>> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of
>>>> the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears 
>>>> to be
>>>> bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG 
>>>> submits
>>>> we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a
>>>> substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well
>>>> die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create
>>>> the perception of partial agreement and success.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
>>>> discussion about our work product.
>>>>
>>>> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion
>>>> by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time
>>>> to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to
>>>> not just sit and wait.
>>>>
>>>> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would 
>>>> consider to
>>>> release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they 
>>>> agree
>>>> we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question 
>>>> moot
>>>> until the situation changes again.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From jjs at dyalog.net  Thu Jan 14 14:53:28 2016
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:53:28 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe
 Submit
In-Reply-To: <56978A6E.7060707@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <362701120.54.1452783204668.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@macbook-air-de-jean-jacques-2.home>

Building on all the comments seen so far, I've written up this résumé for my own sake, and thought you might find it useful:

A/ In writing to CWG, CCWG and Board (and perhaps NTIA), would ICG exceed its remit?

Our Charter states "The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work."

While it is clear that ICG was set up primarily to put together a Transition Plan with contributions from our communities, we cannot ignore the 2 calendar constraints for Transition itself: the termination of the current IANA contract in September 2016, and the US elections shortly after. The NTIA has made known that once it received our completed Plan, it would take another 6 to 9 months to clear all the hurdles, before Transition can be finally validated. And implementing Transition would take several months after that. 

My point is this: whereas our role is mainly technical, it is also our duty to help make Transition actually happen. In addition to the positive attitude the communities we represent within ICG have consistently shown towards the principle of Transition, this principle was also widely supported in the public comments we received, analyzed and published.

B/ Send a message expressing concern and suggesting a compromise be reached, or just wait?

Waiting would provide the comfort of sticking to our remit in a narrow, literal sense. 

My proposal during our call last night, building on suggestions by Jari and others, was to send a message to the parties engaged in what our Charter calls "alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability". 

Having taken on board the email exchange after last night's meeting, I no longer suggest sending our incomplete Plan as a stand-alone contribution. Our message to CCWG, CWG and ICANN Board (copied to NTIA) could include:
- a polite reminder of the calendar constraints, working backwards from the termination of the IANA contract and the time necessary for NTIA and other authorities in Washington to process our Plan;
- in the interests of making Transition actually happen, ICG respectfully calls upon the parties to build a compromise to be included in our Transition Plan, so that the latter may be forwarded to the NTIA via the ICANN Board at the earliest convenient time.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.










----- Mail original -----
De: "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Jeudi 14 Janvier 2016 12:45:50
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe Submit

While all of us share the concern of the timeframe slipping, we do not 
have a consensus on the appropriateness of ICG sending a letter; I too 
find it outside of our remit.  Perhaps each of the communities we 
represent, if so inclined, should draft those letters as a way for the 
participants to the negotiation to be reminded of the importance of 
timely conclusion.

Joe

On 1/14/2016 3:21 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
> I understand this being independent from the question whether we 
> should send a note to CCWG (and board (and NTIA)) - as Jari suggested 
> - appealing for a timely compromise solution.
>
> I'm supporting this idea which would also signal that we're not just 
> waiting (or even worse being in "sleeping mode") rather than closely 
> following the debate and that ICG is deeply interested in the overall 
> success of the transition.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:48 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree 
> thatwe Submit
>
> OK. There is obviously no chance for consensus to move ahead and thus we
> continue to wait as agreed previously. At least we now have on record
> that we considered alternatives.
>
> Daniel
>
> On 13.01.16 23:53 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago 
>> to the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does 
>> and does not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a 
>> further update to its proposal, so I don’t see value in asking the 
>> CWG about the dependencies now. We can read their comments and get a 
>> very precise understanding of how they currently view the dependencies.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg 
>>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all
>>> for it.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
>>>> I fully agree with Martin.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their
>>>> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal
>>>> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
>>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
>>>> thatwe Submit
>>>>
>>>> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and
>>>> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG
>>>> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or
>>>> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  
>>>> I am
>>>> worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our
>>>> credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any
>>>> advantage in the process.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Daniel Karrenberg
>>>> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
>>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree 
>>>> that we
>>>> Submit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should
>>>> (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
>>>> transmission to NTIA.
>>>>
>>>> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
>>>> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did 
>>>> submit.
>>>>
>>>> Reasons:
>>>>
>>>> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of
>>>> the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears 
>>>> to be
>>>> bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG 
>>>> submits
>>>> we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a
>>>> substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well
>>>> die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create
>>>> the perception of partial agreement and success.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
>>>> discussion about our work product.
>>>>
>>>> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion
>>>> by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time
>>>> to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to
>>>> not just sit and wait.
>>>>
>>>> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would 
>>>> consider to
>>>> release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they 
>>>> agree
>>>> we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question 
>>>> moot
>>>> until the situation changes again.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


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


From alissa at cooperw.in  Fri Jan 15 22:23:11 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:23:11 -0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call scheduling
Message-ID: <ABF2CA9B-BE52-4009-9BA4-CD10FE7B129F@cooperw.in>

The chairs briefly discussed future ICG call scheduling and our suggestion is to wait until the end of this month and see if the CCWG publishes an updated timeline before suggesting dates for future ICG call(s).

Alissa

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Fri Jan 15 23:08:50 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 00:08:50 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call scheduling
In-Reply-To: <ABF2CA9B-BE52-4009-9BA4-CD10FE7B129F@cooperw.in>
References: <ABF2CA9B-BE52-4009-9BA4-CD10FE7B129F@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-JPeRk+CamKnvYffjxV-sKinAwpDkm3FLHL8UNC67tcOA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Alissa,
Tks for the message
Agreed
Kavouss

2016-01-15 23:23 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> The chairs briefly discussed future ICG call scheduling and our suggestion
> is to wait until the end of this month and see if the CCWG publishes an
> updated timeline before suggesting dates for future ICG call(s).
>
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160116/4a158113/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Sat Jan 16 07:12:41 2016
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:12:41 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe
	Submit
In-Reply-To: <362701120.54.1452783204668.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@macbook-air-de-jean-jacques-2.home>
References: <362701120.54.1452783204668.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@macbook-air-de-jean-jacques-2.home>
Message-ID: <CA9326DAB69E4932BC93826F926B41FD@WUKPC>

Thanks JJS,

I agree to your conclusion. I don't think it's a question of ICG remit 
rather than responsibility to provide a complete plan timely.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Joseph Alhadeff
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe 
Submit

Building on all the comments seen so far, I've written up this résumé for my 
own sake, and thought you might find it useful:

A/ In writing to CWG, CCWG and Board (and perhaps NTIA), would ICG exceed 
its remit?

Our Charter states "The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place 
alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. 
While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is 
central to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements 
required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely 
accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, 
the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should 
appropriately coordinate their work."

While it is clear that ICG was set up primarily to put together a Transition 
Plan with contributions from our communities, we cannot ignore the 2 
calendar constraints for Transition itself: the termination of the current 
IANA contract in September 2016, and the US elections shortly after. The 
NTIA has made known that once it received our completed Plan, it would take 
another 6 to 9 months to clear all the hurdles, before Transition can be 
finally validated. And implementing Transition would take several months 
after that.

My point is this: whereas our role is mainly technical, it is also our duty 
to help make Transition actually happen. In addition to the positive 
attitude the communities we represent within ICG have consistently shown 
towards the principle of Transition, this principle was also widely 
supported in the public comments we received, analyzed and published.

B/ Send a message expressing concern and suggesting a compromise be reached, 
or just wait?

Waiting would provide the comfort of sticking to our remit in a narrow, 
literal sense.

My proposal during our call last night, building on suggestions by Jari and 
others, was to send a message to the parties engaged in what our Charter 
calls "alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN 
accountability".

Having taken on board the email exchange after last night's meeting, I no 
longer suggest sending our incomplete Plan as a stand-alone contribution. 
Our message to CCWG, CWG and ICANN Board (copied to NTIA) could include:
- a polite reminder of the calendar constraints, working backwards from the 
termination of the IANA contract and the time necessary for NTIA and other 
authorities in Washington to process our Plan;
- in the interests of making Transition actually happen, ICG respectfully 
calls upon the parties to build a compromise to be included in our 
Transition Plan, so that the latter may be forwarded to the NTIA via the 
ICANN Board at the earliest convenient time.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.










----- Mail original -----
De: "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Jeudi 14 Janvier 2016 12:45:50
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe 
Submit

While all of us share the concern of the timeframe slipping, we do not
have a consensus on the appropriateness of ICG sending a letter; I too
find it outside of our remit.  Perhaps each of the communities we
represent, if so inclined, should draft those letters as a way for the
participants to the negotiation to be reminded of the importance of
timely conclusion.

Joe

On 1/14/2016 3:21 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
> I understand this being independent from the question whether we
> should send a note to CCWG (and board (and NTIA)) - as Jari suggested
> - appealing for a timely compromise solution.
>
> I'm supporting this idea which would also signal that we're not just
> waiting (or even worse being in "sleeping mode") rather than closely
> following the debate and that ICG is deeply interested in the overall
> success of the transition.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:48 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
> thatwe Submit
>
> OK. There is obviously no chance for consensus to move ahead and thus we
> continue to wait as agreed previously. At least we now have on record
> that we considered alternatives.
>
> Daniel
>
> On 13.01.16 23:53 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago
>> to the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does
>> and does not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a
>> further update to its proposal, so I don’t see value in asking the
>> CWG about the dependencies now. We can read their comments and get a
>> very precise understanding of how they currently view the dependencies.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg
>>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all
>>> for it.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
>>>> I fully agree with Martin.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their
>>>> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal
>>>> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
>>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
>>>> thatwe Submit
>>>>
>>>> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and
>>>> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG
>>>> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or
>>>> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.
>>>> I am
>>>> worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our
>>>> credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any
>>>> advantage in the process.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Daniel Karrenberg
>>>> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
>>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
>>>> that we
>>>> Submit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should
>>>> (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
>>>> transmission to NTIA.
>>>>
>>>> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
>>>> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did
>>>> submit.
>>>>
>>>> Reasons:
>>>>
>>>> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of
>>>> the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears
>>>> to be
>>>> bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG
>>>> submits
>>>> we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a
>>>> substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well
>>>> die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create
>>>> the perception of partial agreement and success.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
>>>> discussion about our work product.
>>>>
>>>> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion
>>>> by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time
>>>> to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to
>>>> not just sit and wait.
>>>>
>>>> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would
>>>> consider to
>>>> release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they
>>>> agree
>>>> we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question
>>>> moot
>>>> until the situation changes again.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


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

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



From keith at internetnz.net.nz  Thu Jan 21 01:31:17 2016
From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:31:17 +1300
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we
 Submit
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <56A034E5.1080103@internetnz.net.nz>

Fully agree with Martin et al...

Cheers

Keith

On 14/01/2016 10:42 a.m., Martin Boyle wrote:
> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I am worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any advantage in the process.
>
> Martin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we Submit
>
>
> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for transmission to NTIA.
>
> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.
>
> Reasons:
>
> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears to be bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG submits we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create the perception of partial agreement and success.
>
> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the discussion about our work product.
>
> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to not just sit and wait.
>
> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider to release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they agree we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question moot until the situation changes again.
>
> 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
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From epusp75 at gmail.com  Thu Jan 21 11:50:00 2016
From: epusp75 at gmail.com (Demi Getschko)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:50:00 -0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fw: Blog post by Kathy
In-Reply-To: <56A034E5.1080103@internetnz.net.nz>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<56A034E5.1080103@internetnz.net.nz>
Message-ID: <56A0C5E8.6060007@gmail.com>

Hi all!

Just forwarding an interesting text from Kathy's Blog at:

https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2016/01/iana-keeping-ultimate-objective-mind

===
Later this week, ICANN’s Chartering Organizations will indicate whether 
they will support the third draft proposal of the CCWG-Accountability 
Work Stream 1 Recommendations. This is a significant moment in the IANA 
transition process. Support for the accountability proposal by the ICANN 
community will mean that we are very close to a point when the 
transition can move to its next phase.

Since the beginning of this process, the IANA transition has had many 
moving parts. In its original announcement, NTIA identified what it 
called “directly affected parties” – each of whom had work to do to 
develop a consensus proposal on how the transition could take place in a 
way that upholds the core principles that NTIA set forward.

On the operational side, this work has been completed by the IETF, the 
RIRs and, for the most part, by the names community.

The remaining piece is to ensure that, post-transition, ICANN is fully 
accountable to the community it serves. This work has been ably led by 
the CCWG.

In Dublin, the community reached a milestone inasmuch as it agreed, in 
concept, to work within a so-called Single Designator Model. It is 
understood that this governance model can meet the requirements of the 
community for accountability while having minimal impact on ICANN’s 
corporate structure.

There is also agreement on a set of community powers “designed to 
empower the community to hold ICANN accountable for the organization’s 
Principles”.

In addition, there is general agreement on the need to clarify ICANN’s 
Mission & core values; to appropriately reaffirm ICANN’s commitment to 
human rights; and, to discuss the accountability of the Supporting 
Organizations and Advisory Committees.

Finally, in Dublin, the community agreed to a general set of procedural 
steps for the exercise of the community powers, namely:

Community powers will be exercised through consensus: Engage, Escalate, 
Enforce.

In short, there appears to be consensus around a governance framework 
for how accountability will work inside ICANN going forward.

Let’s not lose sight of this considerable progress.

The open questions that remain to be solved have to do the scope of 
those powers, who exercises these powers, and the implications for ICANN 
as a corporation. While these issues are by no means trivial, they are 
solvable, particularly if the parties stay focused and collaborate in 
good faith.

It strikes me that we are in a place where we need to grab consensus 
knowing that the community has done the hard work of satisfying the 
fundamentals of its Charter -- meeting the criteria for success that has 
been set forth, not just by NTIA, but by and for itself. I was 
encouraged by Steve Crocker’s blog earlier this week in which he 
expressed the Board’s commitment to work with the community to get the 
transition done on time.

For the past few weeks, there have been intense discussions on how to 
improve the current draft proposal based on community feedback. This is 
typical in any consensus process but in working collaboratively towards 
the ultimate objective, we should make sure that the timeframe of the 
transition is met.

Importantly, while the discussions about accountability are primarily 
focused on the ICANN community and its processes, the outcome of this is 
critical for the IANA transition as a whole and for all the directly 
affected parties to the transition.

Moreover, seeing this transition through, in a timeframe that is 
realistic in light of the U.S. political environment, matters for the 
entire multistakeholder ecosystem. We cannot go back – we cannot simply 
pretend that the past 22 months haven’t changed the landscape for 
Internet governance. They have. If we, as a community, fail to deliver, 
there will be ripple effects throughout the IG ecosystem.

But if we succeed, when we succeed, we will have collectively done the 
right thing for the Internet.
===

best
demi



From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jan 25 16:34:39 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:34:39 -0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we
	Submit
In-Reply-To: <56A034E5.1080103@internetnz.net.nz>
References: <5696C16E.4070808@ripe.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81BFC2CB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<56A034E5.1080103@internetnz.net.nz>
Message-ID: <25FF2F98-5434-455A-A5D4-74917D932897@cooperw.in>

Based on list discussion it does not seem that we have consensus to take any action at this point.

Chairs and liaisons will continue to monitor the situation.

Alissa