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

Re: [Internal-cg] (no subject)
by Joseph Alhadeff Aug. 6, 2014

Aug. 6, 2014

I would tend to agree with Danil that this creates a false impression. It's, a data point that is significantly less relevant as many of us are here in a representative capacity... it I'd fine to make it known but list it in the bio section... Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net] Received: Tuesday, 05 Aug 2014, 7:22PM To: internal-cg(a)icann.org [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] (no subject) On 1.01.70 1:00 , wrote: > Dear ALICE, > > Thank you very much for the file. > > pls note that I have explicitly asked the nationality and affiliation of > each member. > > The requested information could be added simply below the picture. > > Regards > > k.arasteh > Kavouss, colleagues, I object to listing my nationality and affiliation in this way. I am not here to represent my country nor do I represent my employer. I do not wish our site to give that impression. My nationality and affiliation are a matter of record in the IGC proceedings. My affiliation is prominently mentioned in by biography. I consider that sufficient. Regards Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

3 2

Reminder - Travel - ICG Mtg #2 - By tomorrow COB
by Alice Jansen Aug. 5, 2014

Aug. 5, 2014

Dear ICG Members, Should you need travel support to attend the ICG Mtg #2 (6 September), please be kindly reminded to return the attached travel request form to cgtravel(a)icann.org<mailto:cgtravel@icann.org> by tomorrow – Tuesday, 5 August 2014 – COB. See below for more information. Thanks, Best regards Alice From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 1, 2014 2:34 PM To: "internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>" <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Reminder - Travel & Visas- ICG Mtg #2 Dear ICG Members, Should you need travel support to attend the ICG Mtg #2 (6 September), this is to kindly remind you to please return the attached travel request form to cgtravel(a)icann.org<mailto:cgtravel@icann.org> as soon as possible and no later than Tuesday, 5 August – COB. Note that delays in providing your information will not guarantee travel support. Supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (5-7 September 2014). ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. May we also invite you to go to https://www.evisa.gov.tr/en/ for visa-related information. Thanks - Best regards Alice From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:57 PM To: "internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>" <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: PLEASE READ - ICG Mtg #2 - Travel & RP Dear ICG Members, As announced by Alissa, the ICG in-person meeting # 2 will take place on: ** Saturday, 6 September 2014** At the Grand Hyatt<http://istanbul.grand.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html> in Istanbul Meeting room: Tyana 1&2 09:00-17:30 EEST – 06:00-14:30 UTC See timezone conversion at: http://tinyurl.com/qz5zjh3 Remote participation (RP) features will be available for ICG members who are not in a position to attend the meeting in person. Remote Participation & Interpreting The global multistakeholder community will be able to follow your exchanges through the virtual meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. Coordination Group Members participating remotely in the meeting should join the adobe connect room to view any material being displayed in the meeting room. The dial-in bridge details will be sent to you in a separate email (off list). 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/icg-en.m3u * French - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-fr.m3u * Spanish - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-es.m3u * Chinese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-zh.m3u * Russian - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ru.m3u * Arabic - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ar.m3u * Portuguese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-pt.m3u The community will be also be able to follow the real time transcript (RTT) at http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=06Sep2014icg (also available in the virtual meeting room). Travel Support As indicated in the process published on 6 June 2014, meal and lodging costs for ICG members to participate in ICG meetings will be covered by ICANN, upon request and in accordance with ICANN's community travel support guidelines<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en>. Supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (5-7 September 2014) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. Should you need travel support to attend this meeting, please inform ICANN staff as soon as possible and no later than Tuesday, 5 August – COB. ICANN staff will require your duly completed travel support request form (attached) to process your request – kindly ensure to return it to cgtravel(a)icann.org<mailto:cgtravel@icann.org> within the timeframe identified above. Note that delays in providing your information will not guarantee travel support. Should you have already made travel arrangements to attend the IGF meeting in Istanbul, please inform staff (off list) whether you need travel support to extend your stay. Thank you - Best regards, Alice

2 1

Current Drafts
by Daniel Karrenberg Aug. 5, 2014

Aug. 5, 2014

To whomever holds the pen(s), I would like a reminder where I can find he *current* drafts of charter and RFP and what their version numbers are. Thank you

5 6

Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.
by Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Aug. 5, 2014

Aug. 5, 2014

Dear Colleagues, two weeks after our first Coordination Group (CG) meeting in London, I would like to offer a few remarks. FIRST, THERE IS A TENDENCY WITHIN OUR CG TO DISREGARD THE WIDER PICTURE. For most global Internet users, the NTIA statement about transitioning stewardship of the IANA functions, while undoubtedly implying that technical changes would be required, was primarily a political message about the United States' willingness to hand over that stewardship. And for the global user community, it is natural and acceptable that Washington, as the current custodian, requires certain conditions to be met before transition can be carried out. The fact that the timing of the NTIA statement may have something to do with the Snowden revelations does not diminish the value of the US proposal. To someone who follows US and world affairs quite closely, some attitudes displayed in the CG show little awareness of the fact that the intentions of the United States could be completely misunderstood. They also show little consideration for the user communities in non-affluent societies. When it became clear that the membership of our Coordination Group was heavily weighted in favour of a single geographic region (North America), one citizenship (11 US citizens out of 30 members), as well as business interests and technical operators, this was played down by several members of the CG as representing a "purely political" dimension and therefore not relevant to the matter in hand which, for them, should remain "purely technical". To illustrate my point: in London I was given the opportunity ( thank you Alissa ;-) ) to share a few thoughts about the geo-strategic challenges facing the Internet, and their possible implications for the task of the CG. In reaction, there was not a single question or remark: this was not the silence of approval, but a lack of interest in the topic. Rest reassured, I have no personal hangup about this; but I am concerned that the CG seems to be ignoring an important dimension. SECOND, SUCH A LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IS NOT WITHOUT RISK. In London, through an agreed process, we reached a documented decision in favour of 3 Co-Chairs. After London, some of you considered that you did not like this result, and took the initiative to set up a poll. I mention this topic of Chair structure because it encapsulates several of the problems facing us now. The composition of our CG is what it is, we're not going to change it now. But we owe it to the global community to show more sensitivity to some wider issues. Are we impervious to the writing on the wall? Quite a few in the global user community consider that the presence of US citizens, already so strong in the CG, would not be justified in the Chair structure and would in fact open our work to easy criticism, whatever the quality of that work. It has also been noted that the presence of business interests (already strongly represented in the CG) would be unjustified and unfair in the chair structure. Let me be clear: this is not about the merits or capacity of any individual, it is about over-representation and conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Members of the CG should be aware that they are under close scrutiny by the global community, and that the acceptability and credibility of their final plan for transition will also hinge on the perceived process by which this was developed. It is therefore important to demonstrate to the outside world that we operate in an orderly, efficient and fair fashion, and that we follow agreed processes and abide by our documented decisions. Deciding upon our own leadership structure is an important first test. We need a leadership structure that is the outcome of agreed process and which demonstrates the CG's commitment to its duty to act in the interests of the global stakeholder community. THIRD, THE WAY FORWARD IS NOT NECESSARILY CONTENTIOUS. Like all of us on this list, I'm not interested in confining myself to analysis or criticism. Here are my proposals moving forward: - Membership of the CG: let's just accept it as is. - Chair structure: for all the reasons already put forward by the ALAC, having 3 Co-Chairs from 3 different geographic regions will garner the widest support from the global community. This can be achieved in a simple and straightforward way by the Interim Chair declaring that the poll (the results of which are in any case open to widely differing interpretations) will be put to one side, that the CG will continue as agreed in London, and by calling for candidates for the 3 Co-Chairs. The timeline should be very short. - Global public interest: in the future, we need to consciously take into account the way in which our processes and choices may impact not only the operators and clients of the IANA functions, but more generally the global Internet community. This is the only way to ensure that the transition is a durable success. Best regards, Jean-Jacques.

8 8

Updated deadlines - minutes, RFP, charter, secretariat
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 5, 2014

Aug. 5, 2014

Hi all, I have updated the Action Items list (attached and in Dropbox). It proposes specific timelines for a number of items that we agreed to work on and lists who the owners are — whether the full ICG or some specific person. Please respond ASAP if you think any of these deadlines need to be changed. I’ve tried to synthesize various conversations in other threads to come up with these. In places where “Secretariat” is listed as the owner, I can work with them to get materials posted if necessary. == Secretariat description == Comments due by July 31 Adiel to produce an updated version by Aug 4 Final version to be published and advertised by Aug 7 assuming we reach agreement on content == Communities RFP == Comments due by Aug 1 Paul to produce an updated version by Aug 5 Draft version to be published to communities by Aug 8 (acknowledging its draft-y nature). == Meeting minutes == Comments due by Aug 7 Final versions to be published by Aug 13 == Charter == Originally I think we were hoping to have received all charter comments roughly by Aug 1. Mohamed has made a proposal that we setup an explicit mechanism to solicit community feedback on the charter and announce a clear deadline for comments. I have not seen anyone oppose this proposal. So my suggestion is that I work with the secretariat to get an email alias (not a mailing list) up and running where community members can send comments if they are not able to convey them via an ICG member (which I still think is the preferred approach in general for charter comments). Comments sent to this alias would be directly reflected on a web page that we can setup. Assuming we can get this working by July 31, I suggest that we announce an Aug 8 deadline for charter comments. This is not a lengthy period of time but I think we had a general sense that it’s most important to get the broad outlines of the charter right rather than spending weeks on the details, so hopefully this will be sufficient. Once the comments come in, Jari will have the token to produce an updated version which we can hopefully come to consensus on in the second half of August. One last comment: I know that people were not very warm to the idea of having a conference call in August before we meet face-to-face. However, with all of these deliverables coming up and with us sorting out our decision making processes as we go, I tend to think that having a call during the week of August 11 or August 18 would be beneficial. Of course some folks will be on holiday and whatnot but it might still help to touch base in real time for an hour. Can I interest anyone in that? ;-) Thanks, Alissa

18 21

Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder - Travel & Visas- ICG Mtg #2
by Manal Ismail Aug. 5, 2014

Aug. 5, 2014

Thanks Alice .. I'm not requesting travel support but, if possible, would like to know the hotel at which ICANN will be booking for those requesting travel support .. It may be a good idea if we manage to stay at the same or at a nearby hotel .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 2:29 PM To: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder - Travel & Visas- ICG Mtg #2 Importance: High Dear ICG Members, Should you need travel support to attend the ICG Mtg #2 (6 September), this is to kindly remind you to please return the attached travel request form to cgtravel(a)icann.org <mailto:cgtravel@icann.org> as soon as possible and no later than Tuesday, 5 August - COB. Note that delays in providing your information will not guarantee travel support. Supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (5-7 September 2014). ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. May we also invite you to go to https://www.evisa.gov.tr/en/ for visa-related information. Thanks - Best regards Alice From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:57 PM To: "internal-cg(a)icann.org" <internal-cg(a)icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ - ICG Mtg #2 - Travel & RP Dear ICG Members, As announced by Alissa, the ICG in-person meeting # 2 will take place on: ** Saturday, 6 September 2014** At the Grand Hyatt <http://istanbul.grand.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html> in Istanbul Meeting room: Tyana 1&2 09:00-17:30 EEST - 06:00-14:30 UTC See timezone conversion at: http://tinyurl.com/qz5zjh3 Remote participation (RP) features will be available for ICG members who are not in a position to attend the meeting in person. Remote Participation & Interpreting The global multistakeholder community will be able to follow your exchanges through the virtual meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/ <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/> . Coordination Group Members participating remotely in the meeting should join the adobe connect room to view any material being displayed in the meeting room. The dial-in bridge details will be sent to you in a separate email (off list). 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/icg-en.m3u <http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-en.m3u> French - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-fr.m3u <http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-fr.m3u> Spanish - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-es.m3u <http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-es.m3u> Chinese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-zh.m3u <http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-zh.m3u> Russian - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ru.m3u <http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ru.m3u> Arabic - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ar.m3u <http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ar.m3u> Portuguese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-pt.m3u <http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-pt.m3u> The community will be also be able to follow the real time transcript (RTT) at http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=06Sep2014icg (also available in the virtual meeting room). Travel Support As indicated in the process published on 6 June 2014, meal and lodging costs for ICG members to participate in ICG meetings will be covered by ICANN, upon request and in accordance with ICANN's community travel support guidelines <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en> . Supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (5-7 September 2014) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. Should you need travel support to attend this meeting, please inform ICANN staff as soon as possible and no later than Tuesday, 5 August - COB. ICANN staff will require your duly completed travel support request form (attached) to process your request - kindly ensure to return it to cgtravel(a)icann.org within the timeframe identified above. Note that delays in providing your information will not guarantee travel support. Should you have already made travel arrangements to attend the IGF meeting in Istanbul, please inform staff (off list) whether you need travel support to extend your stay. Thank you - Best regards, Alice

3 4

Re: [Internal-cg] Charter commenting
by Joseph Alhadeff Aug. 5, 2014

Aug. 5, 2014

Alissa as relates to questions of our own process and transparency we should be ready to accept direct comments, as to the RFMWJE related proposals we should try to make, sure those are channeled in the processes at the outset. In all cases we should highlight that comments which are part of larger community of interstate comments are always preferred as it improves our ability to manage the number of comments as well as helps better understand the provenance of the comment. I would be concerned if anyone read our phrasing as an attempt to preclude comments not coming through a community... as I have noted in previous messages I think we deal with when we can accept comments on proposal topics separately from when and how we address comments on ICC processes... Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mohamed El Bashir [mbashir(a)mbash.net] Received: Tuesday, 05 Aug 2014, 10:42AM To: Alissa Cooper [alissa(a)cooperw.in] CC: ICANN Internal [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Charter commenting Thanks Alissa for proceeding with this process, i support the bellow process is practical and clear. formal/Clear processes and procedures are important for ICG work/outcomes. The communities as well should be encouraged to review the submitted comments received from stakeholders outside their constituents. ICANN staff can also create a page which include clear instructions how participate and submit comments to the different IANA-related communities processes, this will be helpful as we move ahead. Looking forward to receive formal communities comments on the charter and other future documents, these community comments will ensure that the current created IANA-related community process are working and producing consultative outcomes submitted to ICG. Regards, Mohamed On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > Here is some proposed text for the landing page that describes the charter > commenting process: > > ICG Charter Open for Public Comments > > On July 18, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) > produced a draft charter <link> that defines its own tasks. The charter is > open for public comment until August XX, 2014 at 20:00 UTC. <bold>It is > the strong preference of the ICG that comments about the charter from the > public be submitted via existing IANA-related community processes, and NOT > through the link provided below.</bold> If you need assistance finding > those processes or contacting the appropriate ICG participant, please > contact <secretariat-email>. If you are absolutely not able to provide > comments through a relevant community or ICG participant, a mechanism for > submitting comments via an email alias is linked below. > > Please be aware that the ICG views defining the broad outlines of its > charter as important, but it views finalizing the charter and moving on to > the real work of the transition planning to be of equal importance. As a > result not all comments submitted concerning the charter will necessarily > be incorporated. > > Public comment submission process links: > > Comment submission: <link> > List of comments submitted via this site: <link> > Charter: <link> > Deadline: August XX, 2014 at 20:00 UTC > > > > On 8/4/14, 4:41 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > > >Not too many people have commented on this, but all the comments are in a > >similar direction, so I’m going to go ahead and ask the ICANN folks to > >setup a forum and get a page ready that has all the relevant details, > >including a notice along the lines that Daniel proposes below about our > >much preferred communication mechanism being via the relevant communities > >and ICG participants. I’d like to also list an email address contact for > >the secretariat on the forum landing page, so that if people don’t know > >how to find a particular community or ICG participant, the secretariat can > >help point those people in the right direction or ask us for such > >direction. > > > >Let’s give a 10-day comment period once the page and forum get setup — > >compromise between 7 and 14. :) Plus if we do that we should have a decent > >chance of having some synthesis of the charter comments ready in time for > >our to-be-scheduled teleconference in late August. > > > >Comments welcome on this plan, of course. > >Alissa > > > >On 8/4/14, 8:30 AM, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> > >wrote: > > > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> > >> > >>I agree that we should set up a mechanism for comments from the > >>general public with the following properties: > >> > >>It clearly, bluntly, repeatedly and unavoidably states that the > >>preferred method for participation is via the relevant communities. > >> Maybe we should have a check box where people have to acknowledge > >>that they understand this before they can post a comment. ;-) > >> > >>All comments should be stored in a public archive for all to see, > >>including for us. Comments in this archive should be kept available > >>for all to see for at least 5 years after they are made. > >> > >>Discussion should be strongly discouraged in this mechanism. There are > >>other places for that already; the most appropriate are the relevant > >>communities. > >> > >>We can then see all these comments and take them into account as > >>appropriate. > >> > >> > >>- ---- > >> > >> > >>Comments for the charter should be treated as just a special case of > >>the above. 14 calendar days is about the right time for this as this > >>is about the time we would need to get substantive comments from our > >>communities and I do not see that final agreement on the charter will > >>substantially delay our other current work. > >> > >> > >>Daniel > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) > >> > >>iQIVAwUBU9+nINDY5Emqa716AQLdBQ//SiFPTNCCn69DUAeN44Q0zrUdzwnw924H > >>JIGV5mNTO2BaHrwdgdJOm1D7PZUIHkyOPZ56OorvXWyQDgZy0bM7jA/P0IuHAfXL > >>CtSGI2+o5jqmN/er00JaS1M7XvjD+1ELC0OkG5zmUY8PD1W+yOGreJ0P2e6y/T7A > >>9SQr1aaGCASlPrCRFTZ3yggSBzkIh1/atlcZk84tnYf04hnTmjuX3w8eJIt9kixp > >>qzRZj8qOTyRW8fbQNYD9BeiMiqpcha4uaU27/gK0Xa91LtQoVGFY5sRceRcBHp4C > >>XiqlH1QQa2vN2AXvQJ3uAVJep/CCUCBRl+i/rfAcjTA7TWegNL6PEidTbatJzGO4 > >>NC36/UDflT99KcGM7F8i/UBDcIiiv56vjbzRez7id7VRQMVxn58pLusKVDYHkkQc > >>JDVgo3IB9HETfUqRr3gFQYA9Wx7gklF0ssbZuoz70534r2CQzEtqGOlqC/6OJzjx > >>u4PsUhHPlnkzJk+P1k3o0eC6TqrRTzpGwblDiiq5/bGCDmNXBXZW9NXTWewwbB9q > >>ZxuP6K0BNiM1pKLXkHlTw3IQNVtIFKodIjHnp/b0vcGtGYEz7gBu4lHhJHbzks9/ > >>SUNpeIRcPeVUD92+G75MDDNDlli/+sFu89pOrv0l8x6y0KOikILLpknlY9+BlHZC > >>WmXf5z9aPHg= > >>=1pee > >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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

Re: [Internal-cg] Charter commenting
by Mohamed El Bashir Aug. 5, 2014

Aug. 5, 2014

Thanks Alissa for proceeding with this process, i support the bellow process is practical and clear. formal/Clear processes and procedures are important for ICG work/outcomes. The communities as well should be encouraged to review the submitted comments received from stakeholders outside their constituents. ICANN staff can also create a page which include clear instructions how participate and submit comments to the different IANA-related communities processes, this will be helpful as we move ahead. Looking forward to receive formal communities comments on the charter and other future documents, these community comments will ensure that the current created IANA-related community process are working and producing consultative outcomes submitted to ICG. Regards, Mohamed On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > Here is some proposed text for the landing page that describes the charter > commenting process: > > ICG Charter Open for Public Comments > > On July 18, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) > produced a draft charter <link> that defines its own tasks. The charter is > open for public comment until August XX, 2014 at 20:00 UTC. <bold>It is > the strong preference of the ICG that comments about the charter from the > public be submitted via existing IANA-related community processes, and NOT > through the link provided below.</bold> If you need assistance finding > those processes or contacting the appropriate ICG participant, please > contact <secretariat-email>. If you are absolutely not able to provide > comments through a relevant community or ICG participant, a mechanism for > submitting comments via an email alias is linked below. > > Please be aware that the ICG views defining the broad outlines of its > charter as important, but it views finalizing the charter and moving on to > the real work of the transition planning to be of equal importance. As a > result not all comments submitted concerning the charter will necessarily > be incorporated. > > Public comment submission process links: > > Comment submission: <link> > List of comments submitted via this site: <link> > Charter: <link> > Deadline: August XX, 2014 at 20:00 UTC > > > > On 8/4/14, 4:41 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > > >Not too many people have commented on this, but all the comments are in a > >similar direction, so I’m going to go ahead and ask the ICANN folks to > >setup a forum and get a page ready that has all the relevant details, > >including a notice along the lines that Daniel proposes below about our > >much preferred communication mechanism being via the relevant communities > >and ICG participants. I’d like to also list an email address contact for > >the secretariat on the forum landing page, so that if people don’t know > >how to find a particular community or ICG participant, the secretariat can > >help point those people in the right direction or ask us for such > >direction. > > > >Let’s give a 10-day comment period once the page and forum get setup — > >compromise between 7 and 14. :) Plus if we do that we should have a decent > >chance of having some synthesis of the charter comments ready in time for > >our to-be-scheduled teleconference in late August. > > > >Comments welcome on this plan, of course. > >Alissa > > > >On 8/4/14, 8:30 AM, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> > >wrote: > > > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> > >> > >>I agree that we should set up a mechanism for comments from the > >>general public with the following properties: > >> > >>It clearly, bluntly, repeatedly and unavoidably states that the > >>preferred method for participation is via the relevant communities. > >> Maybe we should have a check box where people have to acknowledge > >>that they understand this before they can post a comment. ;-) > >> > >>All comments should be stored in a public archive for all to see, > >>including for us. Comments in this archive should be kept available > >>for all to see for at least 5 years after they are made. > >> > >>Discussion should be strongly discouraged in this mechanism. There are > >>other places for that already; the most appropriate are the relevant > >>communities. > >> > >>We can then see all these comments and take them into account as > >>appropriate. > >> > >> > >>- ---- > >> > >> > >>Comments for the charter should be treated as just a special case of > >>the above. 14 calendar days is about the right time for this as this > >>is about the time we would need to get substantive comments from our > >>communities and I do not see that final agreement on the charter will > >>substantially delay our other current work. > >> > >> > >>Daniel > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) > >> > >>iQIVAwUBU9+nINDY5Emqa716AQLdBQ//SiFPTNCCn69DUAeN44Q0zrUdzwnw924H > >>JIGV5mNTO2BaHrwdgdJOm1D7PZUIHkyOPZ56OorvXWyQDgZy0bM7jA/P0IuHAfXL > >>CtSGI2+o5jqmN/er00JaS1M7XvjD+1ELC0OkG5zmUY8PD1W+yOGreJ0P2e6y/T7A > >>9SQr1aaGCASlPrCRFTZ3yggSBzkIh1/atlcZk84tnYf04hnTmjuX3w8eJIt9kixp > >>qzRZj8qOTyRW8fbQNYD9BeiMiqpcha4uaU27/gK0Xa91LtQoVGFY5sRceRcBHp4C > >>XiqlH1QQa2vN2AXvQJ3uAVJep/CCUCBRl+i/rfAcjTA7TWegNL6PEidTbatJzGO4 > >>NC36/UDflT99KcGM7F8i/UBDcIiiv56vjbzRez7id7VRQMVxn58pLusKVDYHkkQc > >>JDVgo3IB9HETfUqRr3gFQYA9Wx7gklF0ssbZuoz70534r2CQzEtqGOlqC/6OJzjx > >>u4PsUhHPlnkzJk+P1k3o0eC6TqrRTzpGwblDiiq5/bGCDmNXBXZW9NXTWewwbB9q > >>ZxuP6K0BNiM1pKLXkHlTw3IQNVtIFKodIjHnp/b0vcGtGYEz7gBu4lHhJHbzks9/ > >>SUNpeIRcPeVUD92+G75MDDNDlli/+sFu89pOrv0l8x6y0KOikILLpknlY9+BlHZC > >>WmXf5z9aPHg= > >>=1pee > >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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

Re: [Internal-cg] Samantha Dickinson in Istanbul
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de Aug. 5, 2014

Aug. 5, 2014

Agreed as well Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 4, 2014

Aug. 4, 2014

Hi Richard, On 8/1/14, 11:54 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: >Dear Alissa, > >Thank you very much for this. Since you are the chair of the ICG, I >consider your comments to be very important. The chair discussion is ongoing, actually. Regardless, please do not consider my comments to be any more important than those of any member of the ICG. The chair role (and the interim chair role) is functional and lends no additional credibility to the person in the role (beyond the ability to deal with lots of logistics!). > >What I deduce from your message below is that: > >1) The draft ICG charter published in 17 July is not actually a draft, it >is final, at least with respect to the process for obtaining proposals >for the transition. > >Although there has been no ICG-approved method for commenting on the >draft charter, we know from messages on this list that there have beeen >proposals to modify the draft charter. > >2) Thus it appears that the ICG (or at least its chair) is making >decisions regarding the process without taking into account community >comments. > >I would have expected the ICG to make proposls regarding the process and >to submit them for public comment before deciding. I’m not sure why you deduce the above. My message explicitly described “[t]he thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward.” Importantly, it described “my understanding” of “what the ICG has proposed." > >3) As far as I can tell, the proposed process calls for proposals from >the 3 customer communities of IANA – representing Names, Numbers and >Protocol Parameters - which addresses certain aspects of their own >individual community requirements/arrangements. > >I don't see anything wrong with that, but I also don't see why those >should be the only proposals. > >In my view, the issue can also be approached globally, through a proposal >that covers all three elements (names, numbers, and protocol parameters), >and that also covers the related issue of ICANN's accountabily. I >recognize that the issue of ICANN's accountability is not in the scope of >the ICG, but the ICG could note the relation between a proposal regarding >IANA Stewardship and ICANN accountability. > >Thus, if the process you outline below is the only way to submit >proposals, then I think that it is too restrictive and will unduly reduce >the breadth and scope of the proposals. > >Further, I don't think that the process itself is broad enough, because >not all members of the global multi-stakeholder community are members of >the 3 communities mentioned above. Thus they are not familiar with the >processes used in those communities. > >Asking them to contribute through those communities narrows the scope for >inputs and, in my view, impoverishes the discussion. > >Recall that, as I have indicated in my comments on the draft charter, >NTIA did not ask ICANN to convene discussions within just the Internet >community. It asked ICANN to also consult the global multi-stakeholder >community. I guess we just disagree about the above. As I said in my note, it is my sincere hope that no notion of “membership” prevents anyone from participating, and also that anyone who needs help participating can get it. The IETF certainly does not have membership. Best, Alissa > >4) I also note that, in your view, the composition of the ICG is >arbitrary. > >Thanks again and best, >Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] >> Sent: samedi, 2. août 2014 02:46 >> To: Tamer Rizk; rhill(a)hill-a.ch; Stephen Farrell >> Cc: internal-cg(a)icann.org; ianatransition(a)icann.org; >> ianaxfer(a)elists.isoc.org >> Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition >> of the ICG) >> >> >> Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of >>any >> interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if >>a >> clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG >> has proposed for a process going forward is explained below. >> >> There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing >> components of the transition proposal: >> >> (1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As >> with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No >> one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding >>how >> to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced >>IETF >> participants) are here to help. The process uses well established >> mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to >> successfully craft thousands of documents over the years. >> >> (2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation >> (which I’m sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will >> also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people >>need >> help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing >> that help. >> >> (3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the >> only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I >> haven’t seen any indication that participation will be somehow >>restricted. >> Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel — >>but >> certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the >>ICG >> could run. >> >> If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, >> where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop >> focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that >> coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the >> appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and >> consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an >>arbitrary >> group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process >>created >> de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support >> and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the >> various IANA functions? >> >> Alissa >> >> On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk(a)inficron.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our >> >feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the >> >output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is >> >representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG >> >should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge >> >them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider >> >community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both >> >external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group >>is >> >interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would >> >appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to >> >the previous suggestions herein. >> > >> >Richard Hill wrote: >> >> Please see below. >> >> >> >> Thanks and best, >> >> Richard >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] >> >>> Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 >> >>> To: rhill(a)hill-a.ch >> >>> Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition(a)icann.org >> >>> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition >> of the ICG) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the >> >>> summary could well include a satement to the effect that >> >>> proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in >> >>> consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a >> >>> consensus proposal. >> >>> >> >>> Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their >> >>> respective proposals before sending it to the ICG? >> >> >> >> Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all the >> >> coordination is done outside ICG? >> >> >> >>> >> >>> What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top >> >>> down process with consultations. >> >> >> >> Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make inputs, an >> >>editor >> >> collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on >>the >> >> draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc. >> >> >> >> If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal, >> >>why >> >> not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that >>"bottom >> >>up", >> >> I call that "pre-cooked deal". >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Not good enough for me. >> >>> >> >>>> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment, >> >>> as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it. >> >>> >> >>> Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something >> >>> that will never happen. You know that as well as I do. >> >> >> >> There will surely be more objections at the end if people are >> >>discouraged >> >> from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the >> >>output in >> >> some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not >> >>included). >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Patrik >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> ianatransition mailing list >> >> ianatransition(a)icann.org >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >> >> >> >_______________________________________________ >> >IANAxfer mailing list >> >IANAxfer(a)elists.isoc.org >> >https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> >> >> >> >

7 10