For your review - version V3.3
Dear All, Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that we've also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document. Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as possible. Also, note that we've incorporated those edits and/or comments that we considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly. You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC. For your convenience I've attached a redline and clean version both in Word as well as pdf. Thanks again for all your feedback! Marika
I made some suggested edits, some of which are significant but I believe they reflect the latest recommendations of the DTs. I also inserted some comments and questions. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:51 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3 Dear All, Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that we've also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document. Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as possible. Also, note that we've incorporated those edits and/or comments that we considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly. You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC. For your convenience I've attached a redline and clean version both in Word as well as pdf. Thanks again for all your feedback! Marika
Hi, Marika, apologies for yet another edit. Do not know it it is too late, but responding to the issues in the current draft. DT-N worked on both Annex F and Annex L trying to make them consistent. - Worked of the escalation triggers. - CSC + a super-majority of ccNSO and GNSO can trigger the IFR - the IFRT can trigger (recommend) a Separation mechanism - made Annex F & L consistent & non overlapping on triggers - minor changes to short version (III.A.i.d & III.A.ii.d) for consistency with annex F & L - put the decisions of the IFR back to Consensus or super-majority. - removed IETF & RIRs from IFRT - move trigger to trigger section in F - changed duration of IFR to 9 months - fixed table to refer to IFR Made all the edits to the not-clean version. Hope that was the right thing to do. Another note that was made to me in my constituency, will we have a glossary of acronyms. We are very acronym rich. thanks avri On 20-Apr-15 14:50, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that we’ve also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document.
_Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as possible._
Also, note that we’ve incorporated those edits and/or comments that we considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly.
You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC.
For your convenience I’ve attached a redline and clean version both in Word as well as pdf.
Thanks again for all your feedback!
Marika
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Thanks, Avri, received. And yes, we are working on a glossary. Best regards, Marika From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Organization: Technicalities Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: Tuesday 21 April 2015 00:43 To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3 Hi, Marika, apologies for yet another edit. Do not know it it is too late, but responding to the issues in the current draft. DT-N worked on both Annex F and Annex L trying to make them consistent. - Worked of the escalation triggers. - CSC + a super-majority of ccNSO and GNSO can trigger the IFR - the IFRT can trigger (recommend) a Separation mechanism - made Annex F & L consistent & non overlapping on triggers - minor changes to short version (III.A.i.d & III.A.ii.d) for consistency with annex F & L - put the decisions of the IFR back to Consensus or super-majority. - removed IETF & RIRs from IFRT - move trigger to trigger section in F - changed duration of IFR to 9 months - fixed table to refer to IFR Made all the edits to the not-clean version. Hope that was the right thing to do. Another note that was made to me in my constituency, will we have a glossary of acronyms. We are very acronym rich. thanks avri On 20-Apr-15 14:50, Marika Konings wrote: Dear All, Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that we've also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document. Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as possible. Also, note that we've incorporated those edits and/or comments that we considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly. You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC. For your convenience I've attached a redline and clean version both in Word as well as pdf. Thanks again for all your feedback! Marika _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>
The discussion about INT last night made me have an close look at the INT pargraph at this version. I do notice that a) since .INT is already delegated, RFC 6761 (Special-Use Names) doesn't really play any roll here so there is no need to mention it; b) likewise, there is no need to mention for what purose the eligible registrant might use it; c) policy for INT is actually described in 1951 and further restricted to just the international organisations (See iana.org for the eligiblity rules. The last infrastructural database (ip6.int) was removed per RFC 4152 in 2005. Therefore I propose the following rewrite of section e, page 36 (Final Clean draft V3 in pdf). Regards, jaap ---- e) Redelegation and Operation of the .INT TLD (NTIA IANA Functions Contract: C.2.9.4) * Description of the function: Historically, the policy for INT is described in IETF RFC 1591. The policy allowed registration for both international organisations and for use for international databases for infrastructure use. Specifically, the policy for INT related to international databases for infrastructure use was determined by the IETF. RFC 3172 recommended that such uses move under ARPA, and the only then-extant use of INT for such infrastructure (the IPv6 reverse mapping tree) was in fact moved under ARPA; all subsequent infrastructure uses have been under ARPA. Since this change, it is only possible for an international treaty organizations to register domain names under INT for use for the organization itself. * Customers of the function: Eligible registrants for registration in .INT (http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy). * What registries are involved in providing the function: Root Zone database, Root Zone WHOIS, .INT Zone database, .INT WHOIS database. * Overlaps or interdependencies: Historically policy has partially been determined by IETF, however per RFC 3172, .INT is no longer used for international databases for infrastructure use, instead ARPA TLD is used for this.
Hi,
c) policy for INT is actually described in 1951 and further restricted to just the international organisations (See iana.org for the eligiblity rules.
A nit: the current registration policy for .INT (now) limits that TLD to international _treaty_ organizations, and ones with "an independent legal personality", only.
The last infrastructural database (ip6.int) was removed per RFC 4152 in 2005.
Not quite. There are still a number of "infrastructure database" domains in .INT: ADSN.INT (not sure what this is) ATMA.INT (presumably Asynchronous Transfer Mode address reverse mappings) IP4.INT (reverse mappings for IPv4 addresses, not used -- in-addr.arpa is used instead) NSAP.INT (OSI NSAP reverse mappings, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1706) RDI.INT (not sure what this is, might be related to ATM) REG.INT (used (at least) for TSIG algorithm names, see https://tools.ietf.org/htmp/rfc2845) TPC.INT ("The Phone Company", see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1703) Not sure how many of these are still used. Regards, -drc
David Conrad writes:
c) policy for INT is actually described in 1951 and further restricted to just the international organisations (See iana.org for the eligiblity rules.
A nit: the current registration policy for .INT (now) limits that TLD to international _treaty_ organizations, and ones with "an independent legal personality", only.
Good catch, I was doing this from memory. That's why in in the proposed text I put the reference to the iana INT policy page.
The last infrastructural database (ip6.int) was removed per RFC 4152 in 2005.
Note that this line is not in the proposed text so there is some wiggle room :-).
Not quite. There are still a number of "infrastructure database" domains in .INT:
ADSN.INT (not sure what this is) ATMA.INT (presumably Asynchronous Transfer Mode address reverse mappings) IP4.INT (reverse mappings for IPv4 addresses, not used -- in-addr.arpa is used instead) NSAP.INT (OSI NSAP reverse mappings, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1706) RDI.INT (not sure what this is, might be related to ATM) REG.INT (used (at least) for TSIG algorithm names, see https://tools.ietf.org/htmp/rfc2845) TPC.INT ("The Phone Company", see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1703)
Not sure how many of these are still used.
I didn't realize these things were (still) in. I did a quick check and noticed that most nameservers of these domains don't respond to anything. I'm not sure whether it is worth mentioning it. jaap
I still think that there is confusion between I.B and I.C on page 4. I.B is about the customers of the service. I think that I.C is about the database (a different meaning or registry to our common parlance on this list) that is being amended - hence the root-zone and WHOIS databases etc. As answered here we are near enough treating the two questions as identical/ If I'm wrong, then the answers to Annex A second and third bullets under a)-g) & i)-j) (pp 34-38) need amending. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: 20 April 2015 19:51 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3 Dear All, Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that we've also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document. Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as possible. Also, note that we've incorporated those edits and/or comments that we considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly. You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC. For your convenience I've attached a redline and clean version both in Word as well as pdf. Thanks again for all your feedback! Marika
I realize it may be too late for this comment but I’m sending it anyway just in case. I think III.A.i.a and III.A are ambiguous as to whether the existing IANA staff, resources, processes, and data related to the non-naming functions (e.g., numbering and protocol parameters) (1) are expected to move to the PTI, (2) are not expected to move to the PTI, or (3) whether this decision is to be left up to ICANN. I don’t think footnote 5 covers this, because it is not obvious that personnel, resources, etc. count as “arrangements.” Furthermore, the decision of whether to move staff and resources to the PTI and the decision of whether to move an existing contract to the PTI are distinct. For example, the protocol parameters staff could move to the PTI but the IETF-ICANN MOU could remain as-is. So I think for the other communities to be able to comment on the CWG proposal effectively, III.A.i.a needs to make clear which of the three options above the CWG is suggesting. This issue would be additionally clarified if the document referred to the “IANA naming functions operator” and “IANA naming functions” in all places where the text is describing an arrangement specific to the naming functions (which seems like it would be most places where “IANA functions” is currently used, at least in Section III). Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that we’ve also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document.
Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as possible.
Also, note that we’ve incorporated those edits and/or comments that we considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly.
You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC.
For your convenience I’ve attached a redline and clean version both in Word as well as pdf.
Thanks again for all your feedback!
Marika <CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - clean - 20 April 2015.pdf><CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - clean - 20 April 2015.doc><CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - 20 April 2015.pdf><CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - 20 April 2015.doc>_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Glad you flagged this. I think this is more than an ambiguity, clarifying it is crucial to the viability of the proposal. It makes no sense to create a separate affiliate only for the names functions. ICANN should divest itself of all of the IANA functions into the PTI affiliate; this is always what has been contemplated in these discussions. It is true that ICANN's contract with PTI would apply only to the naming-related functions, so perhaps that is where the confusion came from. So III.A should make it clear that all existing IANA staff, resources, data, etc. will move to PTI. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:56 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3 I realize it may be too late for this comment but I'm sending it anyway just in case. I think III.A.i.a and III.A are ambiguous as to whether the existing IANA staff, resources, processes, and data related to the non-naming functions (e.g., numbering and protocol parameters) (1) are expected to move to the PTI, (2) are not expected to move to the PTI, or (3) whether this decision is to be left up to ICANN. I don't think footnote 5 covers this, because it is not obvious that personnel, resources, etc. count as "arrangements." Furthermore, the decision of whether to move staff and resources to the PTI and the decision of whether to move an existing contract to the PTI are distinct. For example, the protocol parameters staff could move to the PTI but the IETF-ICANN MOU could remain as-is. So I think for the other communities to be able to comment on the CWG proposal effectively, III.A.i.a needs to make clear which of the three options above the CWG is suggesting. This issue would be additionally clarified if the document referred to the "IANA naming functions operator" and "IANA naming functions" in all places where the text is describing an arrangement specific to the naming functions (which seems like it would be most places where "IANA functions" is currently used, at least in Section III). Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that we've also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document. Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as possible. Also, note that we've incorporated those edits and/or comments that we considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly. You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC. For your convenience I've attached a redline and clean version both in Word as well as pdf. Thanks again for all your feedback! Marika <CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - clean - 20 April 2015.pdf><CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - clean - 20 April 2015.doc><CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - 20 April 2015.pdf><CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - 20 April 2015.doc>_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (8)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Avri Doria -
David Conrad -
Gomes, Chuck -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Marika Konings -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller