Hi all, My apologies, I had said I could attend this meeting, but was assuming it started at Noon in London, and I now realise that it will be at 1pm local time, when I have other commitments... Can I therefore update you all via this email on FOI and ICG issues: 1. FOI - Becky and I met with Elise Gerich and Naela Sarras from IANA staff last week, and clarified a number of issues IANA staff had with the implementation process. It appears the staff are progressing well down the implementation path, and I would expect to see reasonably rapid progress as staff seem to appreciate there is a considerable additional workload mounting on other issues so are seeking to get through the FOI expediently. 2. ICG- The ICG met F2F for 2 days in Los Angeles last week, and by teleconference yesterday. It has several calls scheduled between now and Dublin, as it gets towards the sharp end of the timeline for the transition plan. Scheduled meetings for the ICG at ICANN Dublin include: - Saturday, 17th 13:00-17:00 ICG Working Session - Sunday, 18th 09:00-12:00 ICG Working Session - Sunday, 18th TBD (120 min) TBD Transition Session - Monday, 19th 10:30-12:30 ICG/CCWG Joint Townhall Meeting - Monday, 19th TBD (90-120 min) TBD Implementation Session - Thursday, 22nd 10:30-12:30 ICG Working Session - Friday, 23rd 09:00-17:00 ICG Working Session There was considerable progress made in advancing the transition plan over the past week, and ICG members worked productively and collaboratively to formulate responses to the huge number of submissions received on the open consultation on the plan. The major stumbling block confronting the transition is currently the issues arising in the CCWG-Accountability group, which hopefully may find resolution during their F2F meeting in Los Angeles later this week. Many of the ICG members expressed their belief that there is overall community support for the IANA Transition Plan, subject to a number of reservations, apart from the Accountability issues. The ICG is writing to the CWG-IANA group with a number of queries, clarifications and suggestions of the way forward on the Names Proposal. The final comments will be finalised within the next day, but the main points are as follows: 1. Does the Verisign / ICANN RZM arrangements post NTIA’s authorization role meet the CWG’s requirements as per Para 1150 sections 2 & 3 ? 2. Should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone authorisation, such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation 3. Suggested amendment to Paragraph 1027 of the Names Proposal to remove reference to ICP-1 by replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.” Please let us know if you agree to this amendment? 4. Pointing out that the ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005). 5. ICG received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283). This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT. While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member. In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement. If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment. 6. Several questions around PTI - its powers, limitations, selection of board members etc – clarifications in the main... 7. Several questions relating to Scope – e.g. is the IFO for Names only or across all IANA functions. Does the CSC apply purely for the Names functions? The IFR (IANA Functions Review) is applicable only to the Names portion? Is it intended that .arpa incluede in the CSC and IFR ? 8. Inclusion of the SLE's into the Names Proposal As I stated above, the final text will be forthcoming very shortly, so please do not take the above absolutely literally as the text is still being finalised, and these are merely my attempted summary of the issues. There are also some issues arising across the 3 IANA operating communities, as well as some for the Protocol / Parameters and IP Addressing communities. Again, my apologies for missing this meeting, and my inability to tell the time! Cheers Keith On 22/09/2015 12:28 a.m., Kimberly Carlson wrote:
Dear all,
As a reminder, the Council call is scheduled on 24 September @ 12:00 UTC – details below.
We have received three apologies so far and we need to get an idea of how many Councilors will be in attendance.
If you require a dial out, please let us know as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Kim Carlson
Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/
Conference ID: 5258
Adobe Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/
Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe Room.
To join toll free via Skype use the number 800 550 6865 and follow the instructions.