December 2014 - Internal-cg

Fwd: Proposal finalization process, post-call
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Begin forwarded message: > From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call > Date: December 12, 2014 at 7:25:22 AM PST > To: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > > Alissa > It does not confusion on the contrary it. Clearly explain the scope and objectives of the matter . > Pls thus retain that word > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 10 Dec 2014, at 22:04, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >> >> There was one topic that I failed to include in the email below: >> >> — As a follow-on to the discussion of 2b, Elise suggested in the chat removing the word “independent” from 2b. This whole phrase comes from our charter, but I don’t think it would hurt to remove that single word, if it’s causing confusion. >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >>> >>> Attached and in Dropbox <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ohtn5rbalvo8piu/proposal-finalization-process-v4-…> is proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc.docx, which reflects the discussion we had on the call and suggestions made on the list. I have removed comments and accepted edits that were provided prior to the call and were non-controversial in steps 1, 2, and 5 (since those were the sections we discussed). >>> >>> If you have further comments on this document, please send them to the list by 20:00 UTC on December 12. I will incorporate further comments received and then hopefully we will be ready to initiate a consensus call for publication on the mailing list. >>> >>> A couple of my own comments: >>> >>> — Please take a look at the new introduction text which is provided to address Adiel’s comment about timeliness. >>> >>> — I assume that people are comfortable with the text in 2(c) regarding testing, but please comment if not, it’s possible that we didn’t discuss it today due to lack of time more than lack of interest. >>> >>> — In section 4, Wolf-Ulrich had a comment that we did not have time to discuss: >>> >>> "Can we define “broad public support”? Isn’t here ICG’s coordination role required in a way to bring together those who object with the respective OC?” >>> >>> First, I think if NTIA chooses to further articulate what it means by broad public support, we could certainly use that further definition. Otherwise I think we need to go with a plain English reading, i.e., most people and communities that we hear from are in favor. >>> >>> Second, I think we can certainly encourage people with objections to get involved in the operational communities. I view this as a subset of what we have been doing all along, which is encouraging all interested parties to be involved in the operational community processes, so I’m not sure that it needs to be re-stated here. >>> >>> Best, >>> Alissa >>> >>> <proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc.docx>_______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

FW: [bwg+] Cromnibus blocks NTIA from transitioning IANA
by Milton L Mueller Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

Here is an anonymized message from someone more familiar with the ways of Washington: -----Original Message----- I think it's pretty much a done deal. This document is the product of negotiations involving both House and Senate leaders, and it needs to be approved by both House and Senate *today*. So there's going to be huge pressure not to make any changes at all; even small changes have to potential to unravel things, prevent passage by the end of the day, and thus bring about a government shutdown.

2 1

Proposal finalization process, post-call
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

Attached and in Dropbox <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ohtn5rbalvo8piu/proposal-finalization-process-v4-…> is proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc.docx, which reflects the discussion we had on the call and suggestions made on the list. I have removed comments and accepted edits that were provided prior to the call and were non-controversial in steps 1, 2, and 5 (since those were the sections we discussed). If you have further comments on this document, please send them to the list by 20:00 UTC on December 12. I will incorporate further comments received and then hopefully we will be ready to initiate a consensus call for publication on the mailing list. A couple of my own comments: — Please take a look at the new introduction text which is provided to address Adiel’s comment about timeliness. — I assume that people are comfortable with the text in 2(c) regarding testing, but please comment if not, it’s possible that we didn’t discuss it today due to lack of time more than lack of interest. — In section 4, Wolf-Ulrich had a comment that we did not have time to discuss: "Can we define “broad public support”? Isn’t here ICG’s coordination role required in a way to bring together those who object with the respective OC?” First, I think if NTIA chooses to further articulate what it means by broad public support, we could certainly use that further definition. Otherwise I think we need to go with a plain English reading, i.e., most people and communities that we hear from are in favor. Second, I think we can certainly encourage people with objections to get involved in the operational communities. I view this as a subset of what we have been doing all along, which is encouraging all interested parties to be involved in the operational community processes, so I’m not sure that it needs to be re-stated here. Best, Alissa

4 4

Re: [Internal-cg] U.S. Government Funding Bill & ANA Transition
by Joseph Alhadeff Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

There was a post by Phil Corwin on circle ID providing some more info... I'm not in a position to forward now... Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [jari.arkko(a)piuha.net] Received: Thursday, 11 Dec 2014, 3:51PM To: Adiel Akplogan [adiel(a)afrinic.net] CC: ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] U.S. Government Funding Bill & ANA Transition I certainly do not have any inside information. My opinion, however, is that it probably serves us well to be calm and not too affected by political debates. It is important that we get the transition right, and we will. Lets continue. Events like this are only underlining the need for the transition. Jari

2 1

FYI: "Numbers" Progress
by Daniel Karrenberg Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

Initial consultations of the regional communities are complete. The CRISP team has started its work on the "numbers" proposal this week. You can find all information on this process, agendas, minutes and documents at https://www.nro.net/crisp-team . CRISP team meetings are open for observers. Daniel

1 0

Call #9 - Archives
by Alice Jansen Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

Dear ICG Members, For your information - Below you will find links to call # 9 archives (see - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-archives-2014-07-31-en) Agenda - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/agenda-icg-10dec14-en.pdf Chat transcript - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-chat-icg-10dec14-en.… Recording EN - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-en.mp3 Recording ES - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-es.mp3 Recording FR - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-fr.mp3 Recording RU - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-ru.mp3 Recording PT - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-pt.mp3 Recording ZH - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-zh.mp3 Recording AR - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-ar.mp3 Transcripts of the audio recordings will be posted as soon as available. Thanks Best regards Alice

1 0

Roll Call - ICG Call #9 - 10 December
by Alice Jansen Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Dear ICG Members, Please flag any inconsistencies you may notice (off list). We will share call archives as soon as available. Thanks! Best regards Alice ICG Members Adiel Akplogan (NRO) Jari Arkko (IETF) James Bladel (GNSO) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Jandyr Dos Santos (GAC) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Russ Housley (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Michael Niebel (GAC) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Apologies Joseph Alhadeff (ICC BASIS) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Liaisons Elise Gerich Kuo-Wei Wu Support Samantha Dickinson Eric Evrard Alice Jansen Ergys Ramaj Theresa Swinehart

2 1

Proposal finalization process v4 - Seeking clarification on step 3 ..
by Manal Ismail Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Appreciate clarification on the highlighted part of the following sentence: "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to have public comments addressed within their components before assembling an interim final proposal." Are components here equivalent to proposals? Does the sentence mean: "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to have public comments on their components addressed before assembling an interim final proposal."? Kind Regards -Manal

2 1

Draft action items from 9th ICG teleconference, 10 December 2014
by Samantha Dickinson Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Below are the draft action items from today's teleconference for the review of ICG members: 1. Following the incorporation of an amendment requested by Karrenberg, Jansen to publish minutes of 26 November teleconference on the ICG website. 2. Akplogan to forward communication related to developments and delays in the process of finalizing the ICG Secretariat to all members of the Secretariat selection sub-committee. 3. Cooper to update latest version of Proposal Finalization Process document (proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk.docx) based on feedback on the teleconference. 4. ICG members to provide any further comments on the Proposal Finalization Process document on the internal-cg mailing list within the next day with the aim of enabling the document to be finalized and published within the following few days. Regards Sam

1 0

Proposal finalization process v4
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

I have consolidated the comments and edits from Milton, Adiel, Joe, and Russ in the attached v4 <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pr…>. I accepted changes on all the text where no one had commented for easier reading. I also inserted a few comments/edits of my own the proposed changes, which I repeat below. Step 1a, bullet 3: Milton suggested using "Whether the proposal obtained consensus” instead of “How the proposal obtained consensus.” I am fine with “whether.” I would also be fine with “Whether and how.” In the RFP, we ask the communities to explain “the steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine consensus.” I would consider a list of those steps to be the “how.” Step 1b: Adiel suggested adding a bullet about timeliness. I do not think this is actionable and so should not be included. If we get a proposal after the target deadline, I do not believe we are in a position to do anything other than start conducting the assessment in step 1. Of course, if we get a proposal many weeks/months after the target deadline, it will create some chaos for all of the steps afterward, but I don’t really see a lot of value in specifying how we will handle every possible case of that sort that could arise depending on the exact timing and sequence of the arrival of the component proposals. Step 2: Adiel questioned whether the statement that the ICG’s role “is not to draft a single transition proposal” is accurate. I believe it is accurate, in the sense that we are not “drafting” or writing anything of our own. I added the words “of its own” to the end of that phrase to try to make this more clear. Step 2: Adiel questioned the use of the word “unifying.” I agree that “unifying” and “uniform” are confusing. I believe our task is one of assembly. Our goal is to end up with one document, but not to massage the text of the component proposals to achieve “unity.” I have replaced the word “unified” in this section with the word “single” to make this clear. Step 2a: Joe inserted “possibly conflicting” as a qualifier for “overlaps” I don’t understand what a conflicting overlap is, and I think the proposals need to have a coherent story about all overlaps. So I disagree with this addition. Step 2b: Joe asked whether we need to cross-reference the ICANN accountability work. I think this is already covered by the fact that we are already asking "Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function?” Step 2c: There has been list discussion between Joe and Russ about testing. I suggested some text as a middle ground approach. In the RFP we do ask the communities to describe any testing they do. I’m not quite sure how the test results could conflict with each other or otherwise be problematic in combination, but I’m happy to check for that when we’re assembling the single proposal. Step 5: I have made the latest changes suggested on the list by Milton, which I think address everyone’s concerns. Alissa

6 9