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

Re: [Internal-cg] website for contributions
by mnuduma July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

Thank you Elise for the information. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich(a)icann.org> Date: 18/07/2014 18:11 (GMT+00:00) To: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] website for contributions https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/contributions -- Elise

1 0

FW: GAC Participation on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
by Alissa Cooper July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

FYI. I’ll send a formatted version of the original letter in a separate mail for posting to the ICANN site. Alissa -----Original Message----- From: Heather Dryden <dryden_h(a)yahoo.ca> Date: Friday, July 18, 2014 at 9:50 PM To: "heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca" <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> Subject: Re: GAC Participation on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group >Many thanks for this note. It has been circulated to the GAC. >Best regards, >Heather > >-------------------------------------------- >On Fri, 7/18/14, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > > Subject: GAC Participation on the IANA Stewardship Transition >Coordination Group > To: "dryden_h(a)yahoo.ca" <dryden_h(a)yahoo.ca>, "heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca" ><heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> > Received: Friday, July 18, 2014, 4:18 PM > > Dear Ms. Dryden, > > The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) > would like to > thank you for conveying, on behalf of the Government > Advisory Committee > (GAC), the request for an increase in membership of the ICG > and the > rationale for it. > > As you likely observed, the ICG was in substantive agreement > that the work > be undertaken in the respective communities, with > participation from all > stakeholders, leaving the ICG with a relatively narrow role > of > coordination. Importantly also, there is a nascent > agreement that we > would operate by rough consensus judged more by the merit of > objections > than the number of them. > > Obviously we have quite an important responsibility with a > very aggressive > timetable. The ICG recognized the benefit to all of > gaining an early and > broad perspective from governments. We also believe that > this will allow > for more effective liaison beyond the usual GAC processes, > and ultimately > will further contribute to a global acceptance of any > transition proposal. > > In light of the above and noting that the original allotment > of > representation was not established through consultation with > the GAC or > the ICG (as it had not been established at that time), the > ICG has agreed > to recognise the GAC request that it be allowed to appoint > five (5) > individuals to the ICG. The ICG also believe and asked > for assurance that > there would be active participation from governments in > other IANA > Transition community efforts. In other words, increased > participation in > the ICG is not expected to supplant participation in various > community > efforts related to the IANA Stewardship Transition where the > substantive > work on proposals will be done. > > In closing, we would like to thank the GAC for working with > us through > this foundational period, and trust you will agree we have a > solution that > will benefit the broader aims of this process. > > Best regards, > > IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group > > >

1 0

draft proposal for a public statement
by Jari Arkko July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

I wrote this. Feel free to use, but only if you think we need one, buyer beware about defects in the merchandise, etc. Jari ——— In March 2014, the NTIA announced its intention to transition its stewardship role of IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. As a part of this transition, the Internet community has launched efforts to derive a proposal to do this and meet the criteria set out by the NTIA. A large part of these efforts are ongoing in the respective communities, for instance for names in ICANN and country-code communities, for numbers in the RIR community, and for protocol parameters in the IETF. In addition, The IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) has been set up with a mission is to coordinate the development of a proposal among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The group 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 will conduct itself transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA functions. The membership of the ICG has been defined by the Internet communities participating in it, namely (ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, gTLD, ICC/BASIS, IAB, IETF, ISOC, NRO, RSSAC, SSAC) and the group's creation was facilitated by ICANN. The ICG has met for the first time on 17-18 July in London, UK. The members of the ICG were on while others connected remotely. The meeting was also streamed live to all interested observers in six different languages. In its first meeting, the ICG completed a proposed charter and scope for itself, talked about a timeline for the transition and communication needs, and worked on the ICG's internal organisation and participation. The meeting minutes and recordings are available at (URL) and draft charter and timeline are at (URL) and (URL). In the coming days and weeks the ICG will be starting its dialogue with Internet communities.

8 10

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Resources
by Ergys Ramaj July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

Dear all, The statement, draft charter and other resources have been posted online and can be found at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-resources-2014-07-… Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Ergys

1 0

Blogs, reports
by Alice Jansen July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

Dear ICG Members, ICANN would be interested in reposting on icann.org any blogs or reports you might publish reflecting your thoughts, reactions and takeaways from this first meeting. If you agree, we would appreciate your sharing them with us. Thanks & safe travels! Best regards Alice

1 0

Requirements for Community Proposals
by Paul Wilson July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

Here is the latest version after this morning’s edit session (Thanks to Joe) 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 4

Document sharing
by Patrik Fältström July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

Btw did you talk about how to handle documents? Shared Dropbox folder? Patrik

2 1

Re: [Internal-cg] Primitive notes on scheduling meetings
by mnuduma July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

+1 CG may wish to consider running a 1hour workshop at IGF on day 0. In that case, we schedule our Sept meeting a day before IGF, plus IGF day 0. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Adiel Akplogan <adiel(a)afrinic.net> Date: 18/07/2014 15:52 (GMT+00:00) To: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> Cc: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Primitive notes on scheduling meetings I’m supportive of a monthly teleconference, 2 more f2f meeting this year (2014) and 2 in 2015. I will rather go for IGF and ICANN as potential venues for these meetings in 2014 for two reasons: 1. They both gather a broder participation than say RIR or IETF meetings. 2. They both officially run for less than 5 days so we can be away for less if we add additional day for our own meetings. - a. On Jul 18, 2014, at 18:45 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > I’m assuming all the calls will be translated, so I hope so. > > Alissa > > On 7/18/14, 3:39 PM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> wrote: > >> If we have something like a .5 day meeting would it warrant all the overhead of translation etc? Is there such a thing as an informal meeting? >> >> Joe >> On 7/18/2014 10:34 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> Couple of thoughts: >>> >>> I think we can meet for less than two days in the future. Like 1.5, 1, or .5 days, depending on where we are in the process. For example, I think it would be useful to meet at IGF, but given that there are only six weeks between now and then and some people might be on holiday in August, a shorter meeting with a narrow focus on specific action items I don’t think we should always assume 2 days. >>> >>> I think we should plan the f2f meetings for the rest of this calendar year, but perhaps not further than that to give us some flexibility to figure out if we need to keep meeting f2f. >>> >>> If we want to have two more f2f meetings this year, I think a short one coincident with the IGF and a longer one coincident with the IETF are appropriately spaced for that. If we want to have one, I think a longer one coincident with ICANN51 (or the IETF, but that might be less convenient) would be appropriate time-wise. >>> >>> I think we should find a slot (or maybe two alternating slots to share the time zone pain) for a bi-weekly 1-hour conference call and reserve that slot starting two weeks from now and going for the duration of our work together. We can always cancel any particular week if we don’t need a call, but at least we’ll have them slotted in our calendars if we need them. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On 7/18/14, 3:11 PM, "Wu Kuo-Wei" <kuoweiwu(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The regular ICANN meeting finish on Thursday. So we can have CG meeting from Friday and Saturday. >>>> >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> Kuo Wu >>>> >>>> Wu Kuo-Wei <kuoweiwu(a)gmail.com> 於 2014/7/18 22:09 寫道： >>>> >>>>> Patrik, >>>>> >>>>> Well, after the meeting. I am free for two days. >>>>> >>>>> :-) >>>>> >>>>> Kuo Wu >>>>> >>>>> Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> 於 2014/7/18 21:56 寫道： >>>>> >>>>>> Question from me to you Kuo-Wei is whether you can free two days of ICANN meeting in LA for CG work? As chair of SSAC I say that would be difficult if not the CG meeting is adjacent to already scheduled meetings. Not during the meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patrik >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18 jul 2014, at 15:42, Wu Kuo-Wei <kuoweiwu(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is the data for us to recognize (but not necessary condition). There are 24 people joining ICANN meeting regularly, and 7~8 joining IETF meeting. So my comment will be: (please see the following) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> 於 2014/7/18 21:26 寫道： >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> see my comments in red >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Milton L Mueller >>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:42 PM >>>>>>>> To: internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Primitive notes on scheduling meetings >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Colleagues: >>>>>>>> Refer to this message as the framework for our discussion of meetings. >>>>>>>> Also refer to Russ’s “Timeline Discussion” document, as meetings need to be coordinated with our deadlines and expectations of milestones. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3 types of meetings: >>>>>>>> - Face to face (F2F) >>>>>>>> - Conference calls >>>>>>>> - Email List traffic >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Proposal: >>>>>>>> 1. Rely on list traffic remainder of July & August: fix 1 call for end of August >>>>>>>> - charter and call for proposals should be finalized via email and list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Open >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Decision: Next f2f: Istanbul IGF or ICANN LA? or Both? or in connection with any IETF meeting? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ICANN LA meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> F2F - Istanbul IGF Sept X - to publicize and promote work of the CG >>>>>>>> CG could make a presentation to a plenary session >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or, F2F in ICANN meeting in LA >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or, F2F in September (IGF) and October (ICANN) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. Conf calls November, December, January, February: set calls in advance for at least every 4 weeks also beyond Feb 15 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Open >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4. Receipt of proposals by beginning of March 2015? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> F2F in Dallas, TX near or during IETF 92, Mar 22-27 >>>>>>>> Or, F2F in APNIC 39 in Japan 24 Feb - 6 March 2015 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Prefer APNIC 39 in Japan >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5. Conf call in April >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Open >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 6. F2F in May 2015 at a location TBA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ICANN 52 Marrekech meeting? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 7. Conf calls in June, July >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 8. Reminders + action lists for every call/meeting >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> >>> Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

Input on the Question of the Secretariat
by Daniel Karrenberg July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

I have been voluntold to lead a discussion on the secretariat. In the interest of making this effective can those who have strong positions on this to speak/mail to me before start of proceedings tomorrow. Frankly I was surprised at the amount of "complications" such as RFPs in this. I am taking no position on this, just expressing surprise and a willingness to understand the issues. Daniel

6 8

GAC representation added to list and website
by Theresa Swinehart July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

All, To advise in follow-up to the discussion regarding the GAC representation, the following are now on this list and the Coordination Group membership on the website has been updated. GAC representation as provided by the GAC are: Manal Ismail (Egypt) Heather Dryden (Canada) Kavouss Arasteh (Iran) Michael Niebel (European Commission) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (Brazil) Welcome to the Coordination Group. Kind regards, Theresa

8 7