July 2014 - Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Statement from this meeting? (plus addition to agenda)
by Paul Wilson July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

I propose that we be prepared to issue a statement immediately after this meeting, with as much substance as we have to report. If agreed, it would be helpful to bear this in mind during discussions, and progressively note any points/decisions which are candidates for inclusion in the statement. As a late order of business we can review those points and (hopefully) make a quick decision about the statement, so that it can be release immediately after. *** So please treat this as a suggestion for the agenda too. Personally I really would prefer not to wait, even until next week, to release something. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38

1 0

Proposed agenda for July 17-18
by Alissa Cooper July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

Hi all, Looking forward to working with you on this important effort. I think I know most of you, but for those who I do not: I’m Alissa Cooper, one of the IETF appointees. I work for Cisco on collaboration technologies (voice, WebEx, video conferencing). I’m currently one of the IETF’s 15 area directors. I’m based in California. I’ve attached a proposed agenda for the July 17-18 meeting, developed in discussion with some IETF/IAB colleagues. This is very much a draft so it would be great to get discussion going with comments/edits/criticisms. Since the group will be somewhat large (~30 people), I made each slot a bit on the long side. Best, Alissa

9 19

This list
by Patrik Fältström July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

" <internal-cg(a)icann.org> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257) Is the archive available to everyone? Don't we think that is a good idea for transparency reasons? If people have comments, to what entry point do they send comments? We can not risk having people say this is not transparent. I want to ensure we are. Patrik - on vacation...but thinking

3 4

Misuse of BCC
by Patrik Fältström July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

By pure coincidence I saw this email in my "spam" email box. I saw it because I am on vacation and by accident looked there. May I STRONGLY say that use of BCC is not to be used, as people might not see email that is not explicitly addressed to them. Either personally or for the purpose the email is sent (a mailing list like this). So, I am hereby resending to the list so that people actually do get and see the mail. Patrik On 16 jul 2014, at 23:55, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> wrote: > Hi all, > In anticipation of CG meeting day 1, this is to kindly remind you of the remote participation details. See below. > The session tomorrow will begin at 09:00 and end at 18:00 local time (08:00-17:00 UTC – time converter: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CG+meeting+-+day+0…) > We would like to run some audio tests prior to the meeting to ensure we are hearing you well. If available, please join us prior to the meeting (07:30 UTC would be ideal). > As always, feel free to contact us should you have any questions or concerns. > Thanks, > Best regards > Alice > ---- > Remote Participation > Should you not be in a position to attend the meeting in person, please find below audio information on how to be connected to the room. By joining the bridge, you will be able to interact directly with the room. > • Dial-in numbers may be found at: http://adigo.com/ICANN/ > • Conference ID 92957255 > Please make sure to not share and/or communicate the bridge details as its use is intended for Coordination Group Members only. > The global multistakeholder community will be able to follow your exchanges through the virtual meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/coordinationgroup/. Coordination Group Members participating remotely in the meeting should join the adobe connect room to view any material (if any) being displayed in the meeting room. > Please note that we will have interpreting services at the meeting. Links to the respective languages are available below: > English: > http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-en.m3u > French: > http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-fr.m3u > Spanish: > http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-es.m3u > Chinese: > http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-zh.m3u > Russian: > http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-ru.m3u > Arabic: > http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-ar.m3u > Portuguese: > http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-pt.m3u > > The documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/coordinationgroup/. There will be a one-way video feed from the room in London only (remote participants will not appear on the screen). > Coordination Group Members will need to join the bridge to be able to interact with Coordination Group Members in London. You may use your landline, mobile phone or Skype to dial into the bridge. > To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. > If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. > > > > > <How to mute Adobe Connect.pdf>

1 0

consensus definitions
by Milton L Mueller July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

An addendum to this note: GNSO voting is structured into two "houses," contracting parties and non-contracting parties (users, essentially). No policy can pass the GNSO Council without getting some votes from both houses and (I think, but am not sure) from each stakeholder group. Thus, one could have "consensus" according to the rules below but a policy might not pass because its support is not adequately distributed across the different stakeholders. I would suggest that we assess consensus in a similar way on the CG. -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:16 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Early draft for a charter Dear Coordination Group Members, Please find below the descriptions/guidelines James is referring to (see p. 9-10 of GNSO WG guidelines at http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-26mar14-en.pdf - or p.42-43 of the GNSO Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf) The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: - Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. - Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. - Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. - Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless. - Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals. Thanks, Best regards Alice On 7/16/14 3:07 PM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> wrote: >The GNSO wrestles with this issue (consensus levels) in its policy >development process. We have developed some descriptions/guidelines >that differentiate between "unanimous" vs "consensus" vs "strong >support, with opposition". > >Perhaps on of the Staff folks could post these to the list for the >group's consideration? > >Thank you-- > >J. >__________________________ >James Bladel >GoDaddy >jbladel(a)godaddy.com > > > >> On Jul 16, 2014, at 13:30, "Daniel Karrenberg" >><daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> >>> On 15.07.14 20:53 , WUKnoben wrote: >>> I think the group has to be clear about the various consensus levels >>>everybody has in mind when talking about "consensus". In addition it >>>should be transparent on whose behalf CG members speak and - if at >>>all >>>- >>> participate in consensus calls. It could be helpful to mention it in >>>the charter. >> >> This is a hard problem in general. In our specific case I would go >> for the pragmatic approach: "No outspoken disagreement by anyone NTIA >> cannot ignore." This is easy to check if we liaise closely with NTIA. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

3 3

Further subdivision of IANA constituencies?
by Paul Wilson July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

In response to the ICANN enquiry, the NRO and IAB submitted comments to suggest the constituency-based approach to transition planning, with an assumption of 3 constituencies or communities of interest in IANA services, namely names, numbers and protocol parameters. Although the CG has not agreed as such, it seems that we are proceeding in this direction. I am wondering now whether this needs more work and refinement, as we discuss the (un)likelihood of consensus within one or more communities. I think the "3-legged stool" view of IANA is valid and useful for this exercise - because the 3 communities, while they share an interest in IANA, are customers of a set of services which are almost entirely independent. So, in theory at least, we can do our work independently without too much risk of conflict. But we discussed this is breaking down in connection with the “names community”, because, it seems to me, such a community really does not exist, and may not be viable due to fundamental differences. Is there a solution for us in subdividing the names community further into GNSO, CCs, and Registries, as in fact the CG constituencies reflect. My question is whether the transition plans of these groups actually do need to be shared, or if they can be asked to lay out their plans/requirements independently, for us to then reconcile. We may find that their differences can actually coexist in the final plan, without breaking anything. Thoughts? Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38

4 3

CALL 01 - Draft Preliminary Report for your consideration
by Alice Jansen July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

Dear Coordination Group Members, At the start of your call 01 (Thursday, 10 July), it was suggested that minutes of the call would be desirable. Attached to this email is a draft preliminary report for your consideration. The call recording may be found at http://ftp.adigo.com/clients/icann/20140710_CoordinationGroupCall1_ID894448… and you will find the transcript in the attachments (to be posted online today). Please send any edits you may have. Thank you, Best regards Alice

1 0

Naming the group was RE: scheduling meetings
by Narelle Clark July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

I've been calling it the NISTCG for want of a better term. Ie the NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition Co-ordination Group. Some of our community objected to it being the 'IANA transfer' group because in their mind they didn't think IANA needed to be transferred at all, but the NTIA. That would rule out Daniel's ICOB. Something witty and catchy would be good - NXFER anyone? Narelle -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de Sent: Sunday, 13 July 2014 9:04 PM To: Jari Arkko Cc: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] scheduling meetings I also agree. BTW do we have an appropriate acronym for our group? "CG" seems too general. Maybe something with relation to IANA: ICG, CIG, CGI... Let's fix this asap to communicate to our respective groups. Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone > Am 13.07.2014 um 04:20 schrieb Jari Arkko <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net>: > > >> For those of us with demanding jobs other than ICANN, it would be useful if we could combine CG meetings with other ICANN meetings to some extent. >> E.g., target L.A. ICANN meeting in October for our next F2F, add a day on to the beginning or end. IETF or RIR meetings might serve a similar function if we think we need to increase the frequency of F2F meetings (which I hope we don't!) > > I agree with this as well. And IGF, which is coming up. > > Jari > > P.S. The IETF would be happy to see you all in some of our meetings, and you might even stay a few extra days, as we discuss IANA and other topics. You'd be warmly welcome in our Honolulu meeting (Nov 9-14) for instance :-) Or our upcoming Toronto meeting that starts a day after the coordination group meeting in London ends. Future meetings are at http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html We also have an IETF policy guest program run by ISOC, a very popular program and something that you might consider if you have not been to an IETF meeting earlier. >

9 8

amended draft charter
by Milton L Mueller July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

Dear all Here are my proposed amendments. Other than being a more specific than Jari's first draft, I was impressed while doing this how small the substantive differences are. Take a look. (Word file attached, text appended below) See you in London -MM Draft charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group The IANA transition coordination group (ICG) has one deliverable, a proposal to the U.S. Commerce Department National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding the transition of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the Internet community. The group's mission is to coordinate the development of a proposal among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The IANA parameters fall into three categories: domain names, number resources, and other protocol parameters. While there is some overlap among these categories, each poses distinct organizational, operational and technical issues, and each tends to have distinct communities of interest and expertise. For those reasons it is best to have work on the three categories of IANA parameters proceed autonomously in parallel and be based in the respective communities of interest. The coordination group has four main tasks: (i) Act as liaison to the three communities of interest (names, numbers, protocols) (ii) Assess the outputs of the three communities of interest for workability, compatibility and consensus (iii) Assemble a complete proposal for the transition (iv) Information sharing and public communication Describing each in more detail: (i) Liaison Members of the ICG will ensure that the communities from which they are drawn are working on their part of the transition plans. This involves informing them of requirements and schedules, tracking progress, and highlighting the results or remaining issues. The role of a coordination group member during this phase is to provide status updates about the progress of his or her community in developing their component, and to coordinate which community will develop a transition proposal for each area of overlap (e.g., special-use registry) (ii) Assessment When the group receives output from the independent groups it will discuss and assess their workability, assess their compatibility and interoperability with the proposals of the other groups, and verify their levels of support in the respective communities. The ICG might at some point detect problems with the component proposals. At that point the role of the ICG is to communicate that back to the relevant communities so that they (the relevant communities) can address the issues. In assessing consensus, the coordination group will rely to some extent on its members to reflect to the rest of the group the support levels within the member's own community, but the group is also authorized to engage in independent assessments, such as public notice and comment periods. (iii) Assembling and submitting a complete proposal The assembly effort involves taking the proposals for the different components and verifying that they fulfil the intended scope, meet the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and that the whole fits together. The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment period involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critical comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If not, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA. If The ICG is authorized to make minor amendments in consultation with the affected communities of interest. If, in the ICG's opinion, broad public support for the proposal as articulated by the NTIA is not present, the parts of the proposal that are not supported return to the liaison phase. (iv) Information sharing The ICG should serve as a central clearinghouse for public information about the IANA stewardship transition process. Its secretariat should maintain an independent website, under its own domain, where status updates, meetings and notices are announced, proposals are stored, the ICG members are listed, etc.

1 0

Meeting agenda
by Alice Jansen July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

Dear Coordination Group Members, It is our understanding that you have been working on refining your meeting agenda in light of recent discussions. In preparation for tomorrow, would you have a final or updated version we could print out for the group to have? We will also make sure to have the agenda posted online. Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0