September 2014 - Internal-cg

Fwd: [ianatransition] RFP for Transition Proposal Issued by ICG
by Daniel Karrenberg Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

Someone seriously jumped the gun, also on the secretariat. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ianatransition] RFP for Transition Proposal Issued by ICG Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:05:27 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> To: ianatransition(a)icann.org <ianatransition(a)icann.org> For original post, see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en Request for Proposals (RFP) for IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Issued by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group // <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2…>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#>// <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2…>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#> The IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) today issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking complete formal responses from the "operational communities" of IANA (i.e. those with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters). *The target deadline for all complete formal responses to this RFP is 31 December 2014.* Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties. During the development of their proposals, the operational communities are requested to consult and work with other affected parties. Likewise, in order to help the ICG maintain its light coordination role, all other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in community processes. Information about ongoing community processes and how to participate in them can be found here <https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community>. Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in developing their responses, so that all community members may fully participate in and observe those processes. Communities are also asked to actively seek out and encourage wider participation by any other parties with interest in their response. Additionally, while the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals from the operational communities only, and that all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG's own processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time via email to icg-forum(a)icann.org <mailt:cg-forum@icann.org>. Comments will be publicly archived at http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum The full RFP can be found here <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en…> [PDF, 95 KB]. RFP Activities Schedule: RFP Published 3 September 2014 Closing Date for Submission of Proposals 31 December 2014

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
by Joe Alhadeff Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

I think there are perhaps two amendments I would suggest to Martin's comments. 1. Quorum as a concept should probably be more clearly applied only to voting/ultimate decision-making. In its normal usage it also applies to when a meeting can be held based on attendance of members. 2. I agree that operational communities have a special role, but also believe that we need to consider all communities. Is there a way to keep the text as is and address Martin's concern in IV instead? Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk To: alissa(a)cooperw.in, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de, internal-cg(a)icann.org Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 5:08:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Thank you Alissa: this reflects my concerns well. I note that we did this discussion entirely by e-mail, so I can understand how Wolf-Ulrich missed it. I have a couple of other comments - all are in the marked-up draft attached and placed in drop-box. Best Martin -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 03 September 2014 11:29 To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks for your work on this. On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" wrote: > >* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added > the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of >the ICG > communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally >opposed. > That would mean a formal written objection by the community >leadership on > behalf of their community. > I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read: "After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.” Alissa _______________________________________________ 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

4 3

RFP feedback from IETF community
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

I circulated the communities RFP to the IETF community and I wanted to relay back two pieces of feedback that were received. 1) As I think Elise had pointed out earlier, the document uses the terms IANA “functions," “services" and “activities.” It might not be clear if these are all words for the same thing, or if they mean different things. If they are the same, perhaps we should choose just one term. If there are differences, a short explanation of those differences could be useful. 2) In Section IV about transition implications, we might want to include an additional bullet point about “How long the proposals in Section III are expected to take to complete and any intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” Thanks, Alissa

2 1

Test
by Mary Uduma Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

Mary

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Centralized information portal and RFP with link
by Alice Jansen Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

Dear ICG members, The RfP was published yesterday and may be found at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en… Translations will be published as soon as available. The announcement can be found at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en Thank you Best regards Alice From: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 8:23 AM To: ICG <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Centralized information portal and RFP with link The centralized information portal is live: <https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community>. Please circulate it with your constituencies. I added the link to the RFP (attached and in Dropbox). Alice, could we get this version published on the web site as a stable draft and make an announcement about its publication? Thanks, Alissa

1 0

Consensus Building , your v5 doc.
by Kavouss Arasteh Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

Dear All, It seems to me that you have not even examine my proposal sent to you on this doc. Your v5 as published on DROPBOX has serious difficulties, inconsistencies incorrect terms and legal deficiencies I am not in agreement with that and request you to immediately reconsider that version and take into account the proposed amendment as sent you many time Should you take no action , we would have serious difficulties on 06 September to agree on any text regards Kavouss

1 0

consensus building
by WUKnoben Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

All, attached is draft version v5 of the consensus building document which I’ve also uploaded to the dropbox. In addition I send you the “ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3JHA” with all latest revisions and comments from your side (I hope I’m right). I have inserted my comments to yours as well as proposals on how to proceed. ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 is the result of this exercise: a.. it is explained that ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Laison Expert are not taking part in the decision making b.. “participants” replaced by “members” c.. quorum for decision making is defined as: A quorum is a majority of ICG members and must include at least one member of each ICG community (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en; 16 or more). This would cover Martins respective comment. If required something could be included in case of unintended absence. d.. re 4.a Personnel Decisions: in the second para. I suggest to lift the voting threshold to the level of the quorum as defined. Otherwise a voting with 9 affirmative votes may succeed which seems to be unbalanced. e.. “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community. f.. minority views – if any – should be expressed in the report (maybe as an annex) g.. chair / (and/or) vicechairs: I think the respective roles, proxies etc. should be added to the “chair responsibility” document. Then here in the consensus building document reference is only made to the chair. Please provide your comments with the “comment” function in order to make it easier to manage. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

4 15

Re: [Internal-cg] Version 1 of the agenda
by Joseph Alhadeff Sept. 3, 2014

Sept. 3, 2014

If it helps this discussion at all, and by way of clarification, the direction to hold and conclude the election on line occurred at a f2f meeting... in our london meeting there was a direction to hold the election of the officers intersessionally so that they could be in place to organize the next f2f meeting and to also allow for better consultation with communities. Perhaps one way to accommodate concerns while not creating another bureaucratic reporting requirement, is to ask the chair to highlight substantial outcomes that have occurred since our last meeting at the outset of the meeting... Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Adiel Akplogan [adiel(a)afrinic.net] Received: Wednesday, 03 Sep 2014, 2:01PM To: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com] CC: Coordination Group [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Version 1 of the agenda Hello Kavouss, While in the context of a Board or any structural organisation body I understand your stand that decision taken online (the selection of the chairs happened on the mailing list) need to be **ratified** during formal meeting (which is normal governance practice), I would like to raise the fact the ICG is not managing a legal organisation but a coordination group put in place to do a specific job. We want to have simple and straight forward mechanisms to get the job done. We need to avoid over engineering this and adding too much bureaucracy to it. I will suggest as alternative to address your concern that we add a simple statement to the ICG page naming the Officers and the process by which they were selected. In fact do we have a defined quorum for our face to face meeting? If not, we may as well define and agree that all decisions of the ICG should be formally taken only our mailing list where we are sure we have everyone. That can be documented in our rule of proceedings. - a. On Sep 3, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Then we need to put reference to that minutes when published > WE NEED TO DO THE WORK PRPOERLY > If there is a minutes officially published and in that minutes reference made toi the election then reference to that minutes to be made, > However, approving the minutes of a conference call is not legal as it reflects the views of those participated at the discussion. > Alissia and others > the issue was simple It is become more complex in referring to the minutes > Once again simple affirmation of the election as an agenda item is the only possible way > Pls reconder it again > Regards > Kavouss > > > > 2014-09-03 9:31 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in>: > Just responding to note that Samantha was on both of our last calls, including the one where we discussed the approval of the chairs/vice-chairs, and I believe she will be sending minutes for our review and publication. > > Alissa > > On 9/2/14, 11:50 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All > I still believe that whether or nor ICG is political or non political environment we need to follow normal practices that every body else follows.. > If in IETF or other ICANN constituencies that practice was not followed, it is not to me to intervene. However, as far as ICG which has been established pursuant to the announcement of NTIA( political or otherwise) we should formally approve or confirm the election or designation. > I am n not convinced by the argument given below > Quote > " 1. I don’t see a real need to formally confirm/designate the chairs/vicechairs. This was already done with the election and the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes. I think we are here in a working and not in a political environment where such a formal step may be applicable." > Unquote > In the quoted paragraph it is mentioned that ' the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes" > WHAT MINUTES. > Dear Col;leagues > There was some consultations ,there was poll. > There was some outcome . > Some voted .Some did not voted > The results supported the Chair and two Vice chairs as contained in one of the last e-mail > However, as ICG is a formal Group and its output and decisions are formal thus the designation /election of the Chair and two Vice chairs must be formally announced ,no doubt without any discussion ,what so ever , > I hope that you have now been briefed as you should be and kindlky agree to that process > Regards > KAVOUSS > I have not seen any minute( s0 as e-mail correspondence is e-mail correspondence and in no way is to be understood to construe as " Minutes" > As for SUMMARY OF DECISION or WRAP UP > I am happy that finally it is being accepted thus Patrik is kindly requested to include that in the agenda > > > It’s clear that in case of a public statement of the meeting this statement has to be discussed within the ICG. I suggest put the topic “public statement” under AOB – just as placeholder > > > > 2014-09-02 22:19 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>: > All, > > 1. I don’t see a real need to formally confirm/designate the chairs/vicechairs. This was already done with the election and the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes. I think we are here in a working and not in a political environment where such a formal step may be applicable. > 2. I agree that a meeting wrap-up should be done. This may be done in a written form with bullet points. I would not ask for a document similar to the GAC communiquees which need prior formal coordination. > It’s clear that in case of a public statement of the meeting this statement has to be discussed within the ICG. I suggest put the topic “public statement” under AOB – just as placeholder. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > From: Kavouss Arasteh > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:54 PM > To: Patrik Fältström > Cc: Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Version 1 of the agenda > > Dear Patrik > Dear All > I humbly and once again suggest to add the two following items to the agenda > 1. Confirmation/formal Designation of Chair and Vice Chairs, at the very beginning > 2 Approval of Summary of conclusion reached/ decision made ( this summary should be prepared by chair and approved at the meeting) > Kavouss > > > 2014-09-02 12:06 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se>: > All, > > Can you who feel the most for the respective Agenda Items send me information you have, and I will try to add to the agenda so that it is more easy to understand. For example objectives. > > Patrik > > On 2 sep 2014, at 12:19, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn(a)LStAmour.org> wrote: > >> Thanks Patrik, >> >> I think the main issues are captured. >> >> Could I also suggest that for each item, the "agenda item leader" add a short statement of what we expect to accomplish (or a Purpose statement) as well as a link to the appropriate documents. This will help remote participants (and may even help the ICG focus). >> >> For example: >> >> - IANA Functions Transition Request for Proposals “RFP” >> Objective: Approve RFP >> Approve Timeline >> etc… >> Best, >> Lynn >> >> >> On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:47 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> Thanks for the comments. Version 1 of the agenda is just released where I have tried to move things around, re-allocated time slots etc according to the feedback. >>> >>> I have still not validated time for lunch, coffee break and translators. Those outside events might impact time allocation. >>> >>> Patrik >>> <Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul-v1.doc> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

3 2

Dates for RFP for Secretariat
by Patrik Fältström Sept. 3, 2014

Sept. 3, 2014

All, The timeline for the RFP for the Secretariat will be as follows: Publish the RFP on Monday 8 September with a deadline of Monday 22 September. Patrik Fältström

1 0

credentials for ICG meeting
by Milton L Mueller Sept. 3, 2014

Sept. 3, 2014

Minor issue (I hope) I just noticed that the credential I was issued by the UN expires September 5. The ICG meeting is September 6. Will our meeting be in the same building and have the same access constraints, or are we meeting somewhere else? Milton L Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org

4 3