September 2014 - Internal-cg

ICG meeting Friday of LA ICANN meeting
by Patrik Fältström Sept. 11, 2014

Sept. 11, 2014

Here is the layout of the meeting for Friday of LA meeting. Patrik

4 4

NUMBER OF ICG MEMEBRS
by Kavouss Arasteh Sept. 10, 2014

Sept. 10, 2014

Dear Alissa May you kindly identify and8or confirm the exacrt number of ICG Members . I thought it is 30 but I saw a message referring to 32: Regards Kavouss

2 1

Announcements & Links
by Alice Jansen Sept. 10, 2014

Sept. 10, 2014

Dear ICG Members, See below links to announcements and documents: * Request for Proposal for Performance of Secretariat Function announcement - https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-09-09-en; * Request for Proposal for Performance of Secretariat Function - http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-icg-secretariat-09sep14-en.z…; * IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Issues Request for Transition Proposals and Suggested Transition Process Timeline announcement - https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-09-en; * IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en…; * Timeline - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-08sep14-en…. The ICG activities page has been updated to include the documents - see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-activities-2014-07-18-en. The ICG banner has also been updated on the ICANN homepage to include an outline of recent activities. Thanks, Best regards Alice

2 1

Direct consultation with communities
by Paul Wilson Sept. 10, 2014

Sept. 10, 2014

Adiel pointed out to me that we already have an open session in LA in addition to the ICG meeting on the Friday. So I withdraw the proposal to have a special open consultation session during the ICG meeting. I do suggest that a combined open consultation session is the best way to reach the broader community. I do not favour individual community meetings, and particularly not closed ones, for several of the reasons discussed in today’s meeting - transparency, balance/fairness, efficiency/cost etc. Other than this, the ICG is comprised of individuals all of whom are charged with providing a bridge between their communities and the group as a whole. Thanks, ________________________________________________________________________ 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

6 5

Re: [Internal-cg] Open operational community processes
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 10, 2014

Sept. 10, 2014

Hopefully the responses from Narelle and Jari have cleared this up a bit as far as protocol parameters goes. I have some similar questions about the CWG process for names, however. I understand from <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Members+and+Observer s> that in the CWG there will be two different levels of participation: members and observers. Members will be appointed by ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC (the chartering organizations). Observers may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the CWG, or self-appointed. Observers will be allowed to participate and contribute input, but their views will not be taken into account in determining consensus. Question #1: How will the CWG process yield an outcome that has “broad support” if the consensus call only takes into account the appointed members from ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC? What if a bunch of other interested parties disagree with the conclusion of the members? (I’m happy to be told that ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC comprise the full universe of all possible interested parties and all I or some government rep or whoever else has to do is join one of those groups to have my view heard. Or something else. Just curious about how broad participation in determining consensus will work.) Question #2: Observers are required to provide a Statement of Interest. Observers who are not part of a chartering organization are asked to use the gNSO procedures for doing so <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>. That page appears to require a username and password in order to access the SOI form. But I can’t find any place on the site where I can obtain a username and password. Can someone send a pointer? Question #3: The existing Statement of Interest form for gNSO seems to require public disclosure of a lot of personal information. Why is that required to participate in the development of the transition proposal for names? Thanks, Alissa On 9/6/14, 5:02 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: >This is the same as my last message, but I changed the header (which I >should have done last time). If you want to respond to me, please respond >to this message not the other one. > >> -----Original Message----- >> Since then we've brought the draft RFP into our community, and the >> community is now busy working on an actual proposal. >> The first draft of that proposal is out. I think the IETF's questions >> about this topic are more in the proposal itself, and something we can >> work on ourselves, and at > >I have a bit of a problem with this, sorry to say. While I think it's >fine that people in IETF are developing ideas for proposals, the RFP >makes it clear that the process in each operational community is >supposed to be open and transparent, and include other interested and >affected parties. I think it would be a travesty if we release the RFP >and the IETF announces 5 days later that they are finished. > >Even if this is presented as a "Draft," any different ideas coming from >the outside would be dealing with what is in effect a sealed process, in >which changes would not be welcome or even seriously considered. The IETF >needs to convene a publicly announced, open process based on the RFP that >we are developing. > >--MM >_______________________________________________ >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

Consensus building discussion
by Alice Jansen Sept. 9, 2014

Sept. 9, 2014

Dear ICG Members, Attached you will the version which will be used for the discussion. Best regards Alice

9 20

FW: [ccTLDcommunity] IANA Stewardship Transition: Request for Proposals for IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
by Martin Boyle Sept. 8, 2014

Sept. 8, 2014

I've pointed out that this reference is wrong and pointed to the 6 September version. But my attention was drawn to the deadline: as I missed some of the discussions on Saturday, perhaps I also missed a change back to 31 December. The timescale discussion still refers to 15 January. -----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces(a)cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Gabriella Schittek Sent: 08 September 2014 11:15 To: cctldworld(a)icann.org; cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org; ccnso-members(a)icann.org Cc: ccnso-council(a)icann.org Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] IANA Stewardship Transition: Request for Proposals for IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Dear all, FYI:This is about the IANA Stewardship Transition: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en > ICANN News Alert > <http://www.icann.org/> > News Alert > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-05-en > > Revised: Request for Proposals (RFP) for IANA Stewardship Transition > Proposal Issued by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group > 5 September 2014 > > This announcement is to correct the omission from the 3 September > communication of the draft nature of the Request for Proposals (RFP) > for the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Issued by the IANA > Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. The IANA Stewardship > Coordination Group (ICG) issued a Draft RFP for the IANA stewardship > transition proposal with the intent of providing communities working > on proposals the substantive elements of the RFP as soon as possible. > The latest working draft of the RFP can be found here > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en…> [PDF, 95 KB] Kind regards, Gabi

2 1

RFP released?
by Milton L Mueller Sept. 8, 2014

Sept. 8, 2014

I did not see that the RFP was released today, did I miss something? Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
by Joseph Alhadeff Sept. 8, 2014

Sept. 8, 2014

This was a good summary. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal(a)tra.gov.eg] Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM To: Mary Uduma [mnuduma(a)yahoo.com] Jari Arkko [jari.arkko(a)piuha.net] Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com] CC: ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All .. As one of those who have attended the 'consensus building' discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities) ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma(a)yahoo.com> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

2 4

ICANN Accountability Track - Update
by Drazek, Keith Sept. 7, 2014

Sept. 7, 2014

All, Per our discussion today, here’s the latest development on the ICANN Accountability Track. A 21-day public comment period has been opened seeking community input on the suggested process. Announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-08-2014-09-05-en Public Comment Details: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-09-05-en Regards, Keith #2 Drazek “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

3 2