December 2014 - Internal-cg

Draft agenda for ICG call #9, 10 Dec 11-12 UTC
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Here is a draft agenda for our next call: * Minutes approval for Nov 26 call * Secretariat update * Proposal finalization process * ICANN 52 logistics It would be great if we could finish the proposal finalization process on the call or shortly thereafter, so please have a look at the recent thread <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-December/002289.html> and proposed edits <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pr…> and send your comments to the mailing list before the call. Thanks, Alissa

3 2

Rép: Re: Please review: proposal finalization process
by jjs Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

I agree with the improvements suggested by Kavouss and Milton. Jean-Jacques. Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> a écrit : >I agree with the intent of Jean-Jacques’ proposed modification and with Arasteh’s modification of it. The language however is a bit redundant at the end, and we need to work more directly from the clear, step by step language that Alissa has already put into the document. So how about this: > > >a. The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site. > >b. The ICG will transmit the final proposal to the ICANN Board. > > > >c. The ICANN Board will send the final proposal to NTIA without making any changes within 14 days of receiving the proposal from the ICG. Any accompanying letter will be posted publicly. > > > >d. If the ICANN Board has an issue with the proposal, the ICG understands that the ICANN Board will have already shared that with the ICG in a timely manner, through the available opportunities of dialogue and public comment. > >--MM > >From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:58 AM >To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques >Cc: ICG >Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process > >Dear Alisa >I agree with Jean Jacques but suggesting to replace the word "expects "to "understands "due to the fact that our views is more than an expectation >Regards >Kavouss > >2014-12-09 12:21 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs(a)dyalog.net<mailto:jjs@dyalog.net>>: >Alissa, > >with reference to 4e, the ICG has no authority to say what the ICANN Board should or should not do. We can only express a wish or a firm expectation. Therefore, 4d and 4e should be collapsed into one, and reformulated as follows: > >"The ICG expects the ICANN Board to send the final proposal to the NTIA within 14 days of receipt, without making any changes to the proposal. If the ICANN Board were to have an issue with the proposal, the ICG expects the ICANN Board would have already shared that with the ICG in a timely manner, through the available opportunities of dialogue and public comment. In the latter case, the ICG expects the ICANN Board would not modify the proposal, but would send it with a letter of transmission to be made public." > >Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > >----- Mail original ----- >De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> >À: "Narelle Clark" <narelle.clark(a)accan.org.au<mailto:narelle.clark@accan.org.au>> >Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> >Envoyé: Mardi 9 Décembre 2014 10:51:33 >Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process > > > > >Alissa, >I saw a document with several track changes accompanied by you explanatory Note . >Then I asked myself the followings\ >What are these changes ? >Who made them? >why they were made? >WHAT WAS THE REASONS TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES? >if I misunderstood the issue, pls correct me >Regards >Kavouss > > >2014-12-09 3:05 GMT+01:00 Narelle Clark < narelle.clark(a)accan.org.au<mailto:narelle.clark@accan.org.au> > : > > > > > > > > >I seem to have missed the part where we agreed that the ICANN board needed to send a letter of endorsement or otherwise. Surely as a body independent of the ICG they can do whatever they see fit (and ought to). > > > >Why does it need to be referred to here? > > > >I can see a point in inc

1 0

Telephone conference Dec 10
by Patrik Fältström Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

All, Just to remind everyone that the next call will be on Dec 10 at 11:00-12:00 UTC. Doodle results can be viewed here: <http://doodle.com/fq2w2tf476pdbszi> Regards, Patrik

4 5

Liaisons to CCWG Accountability
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Thomas, Mathieu, As the CCWG is preparing to meet, I wanted to confirm for you that there are two ICG members who have volunteered to serve as liaisons to the CCWG so that they can report back to the ICG on CCWG activities: Kavouss Arasteh and Keith Drazek. These two volunteered when the ICG met in October in Los Angeles (see section 4 of https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/minutes-icg-17oct14-en.pdf) Best, Alissa

1 0

FAQ update ..
by Manal Ismail Dec. 4, 2014

Dec. 4, 2014

Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal

10 19

Agenda for call #8
by Patrik Fältström Dec. 2, 2014

Dec. 2, 2014

Next call, #8, on Wednesday, 26 November 02:00-03:00 UTC we will discuss: * Discussion of proposal submission expectations - Lynn * Updates from the communities - Chair Regards, Patrik Fältström Co-Chair

15 29

Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
by Joseph Alhadeff Dec. 2, 2014

Dec. 2, 2014

+1 on both publication and kudos for job well done Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary Uduma [mnuduma(a)yahoo.com] Received: Monday, 01 Dec 2014, 4:39PM To: WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de] Drazek, Keith [kdrazek(a)verisign.com] internal-cg(a)icann.org [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. +1 and thank you Manal for your hard work. Mary Uduma On Monday, December 1, 2014 9:47 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> wrote: #yiv4716653673 v\00003a* {}#yiv4716653673 o\00003a* {}#yiv4716653673 w\00003a* {}#yiv4716653673 .yiv4716653673shape {}#yiv4716653673 #yiv4716653673 -- _filtered #yiv4716653673 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4716653673 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv4716653673 #yiv4716653673 p.yiv4716653673MsoNormal, #yiv4716653673 li.yiv4716653673MsoNormal, #yiv4716653673 div.yiv4716653673MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:right;direction:rtl;unicode-bidi:embed;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv4716653673 a:link, #yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4716653673 a:visited, #yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4716653673 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4716653673 p.yiv4716653673MsoAcetate, #yiv4716653673 li.yiv4716653673MsoAcetate, #yiv4716653673 div.yiv4716653673MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:right;direction:rtl;unicode-bidi:embed;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673BalloonTextChar {}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle20 {color:windowtext;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle21 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle22 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle23 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle24 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 .yiv4716653673MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv4716653673 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv4716653673 div.yiv4716653673WordSection1 {}#yiv4716653673 I agree, too, Manal. Thanks very much for your work! Wolf-Ulrich From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 8:51 PMTo: mailto:internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Agreed. I support publishing the FAQs. Thanks to Manal for leading this effort. Best, Keith #2 From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 10:50 AM To: 'Manal Ismail'; 'WUKnoben'; 'internal-cg(a)icann.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Manal, Thanks for your persistence in developing this document. In my opinion, if it is to remain relevant it needs to be published immediately. I have no objections to any part of it at this time. From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 8:02 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- IANA Stewardship Transition Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions
by Jon Nevett Dec. 1, 2014

Dec. 1, 2014

FYI > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> > Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:24 PM > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IANA Stewardship Transition Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions > > > > > News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-28-en > > IANA Stewardship Transition Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions > 28 November 2014 > Chairs' Statement with progress update and route ahead > Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson > > Following on from the face-to-face meeting of the Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions in Frankfurt, Germany on 19 – 20 November 2014, the CWG has continued to make good progress. > > An initial draft of the Proposal from the CWG was published on the CWG mailing list on 26 November 2014 and this was discussed by the CWG in a scheduled meeting on 27 November 2014. The meeting had a number of points on the agenda but focussed substantially on two key areas: > > RFP3 - The content of the initial draft proposal from the CWG which relates to item 3 in the request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). > Key questions / issues to be addressed in public comment - the prospective specific questions or issues that the CWG would like to see addressed as part of the public comment on the draft proposal. > It was also discussed that while the initial draft proposal from the CWG represents a good platform on which to build, there remains significant opportunity for refinement and development by the CWG based on a range of inputs including that from the public comment. > > We believe that the key building blocks are in place to produce a timely response to the ICG RFP but recognise the need to remain vigilant on all aspects of the timetable and project plan. > > Mindful of the timetable, the next steps in the process are as follows: > > Identify proposed changes in the initial draft of the Proposal from the CWG by 12h00 UTC in 29 November 2014. > Integrate changes into the initial draft of the Proposal from the CWG such that it becomes a draft of the Proposal from the CWG published for public comment on 1 December 2014. > Continue to work as a CWG in parallel with public comment period including developing areas of the document relating to items 4, 5 & 6 of the RFP from the ICG. > Recognise that final substantial inputs to the proposal will need to be complete by the end of the weekend of 10/11 January 2015 such that the week following is focussed solely on refining the proposal document. > Ensure widespread awareness of the draft and the key milestones of the CWG including ensuring that all chartering organisations recognise the 19-30 January 2015 time slot for approving the proposal. > We also note that a particular area of attention for the CWG is to ensure effective coordination with the parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. To that end, the CWG co-chairs met on 28 November 2014 with the co-chairs of the drafting team on Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, at least one of whom (Thomas Rickert) we understand will remain as a co-chair of the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. Recognising that the two cross community groups are at different points in their work, it was discussed that the CWG on Naming Related Functions could make a contribution to the CCWG on Accountability by assisting to identify accountability mechanisms that are necessary conditions for the stewardship transition. To this end, we (the co-chairs of the CWG) plan to work with our CWG to identify such necessary conditions for transmission to the CCWG on Accountability in order to assist their work and moreover, to coordinate with the co-chairs of the CCWG on Accountability on an ongoing basis. > > > >

1 0

Transition and the "Kelly Bill".
by Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Dec. 1, 2014

Dec. 1, 2014

Colleagues, I found this article interesting: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/28/laws-sausages-and-the-iana-tra… Jean-Jacques.

1 0