January 2015 - Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Chairs' Statement - Weekend Sessions 10 & 11 January 2015
by Martin Boyle Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Dear colleagues, Following the open consultation on its draft proposal, the Cross-Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG) held an intensive work weekend on 10-11 January: four conference calls, in total around nine hours. In preparation for the weekend the CWG carried out two surveys to test support for different ideas in the draft proposal and for some of the ideas and comments received during the consultation. I'm afraid that I will not be able to join you on Wednesday evening's call, but I thought it would be useful for you to note the outcome of the intensive work weekend and where the work now stands. I am forwarding to you the chairs' statement from the weekend, which has links to the detailed discussions. Hope this helps Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: 12 January 2015 00:25 To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Chairs' Statement - Weekend Sessions 10 & 11 January 2015 All, Please see attached for a Chairs' Statement arising out of the weekend sessions on 10 & 11 January 2015. Thank-you to all who contributed time and energy to the sessions. Best wishes, Jonathan & Lise

1 0

CircleID Blog on Transition
by Drazek, Keith Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

FYI, in case you haven’t already seen this, it’s highly relevant to the work of the ICG: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150105_haste_makes_waste_icann_on_cwg_iana_… Keith “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.”

9 8

Re: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
by Milton L Mueller Jan. 9, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

I would accept "The WG consensus did not agree with including the recommendations in the ICG response but this does not preclude the IAOC from pursuing them." > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 2:33 PM > To: Milton L Mueller; Jari Arkko > Cc: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org; internal-cg(a)icann.org; draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg- > response.all(a)tools.ietf.org; IETF-Discussion list > Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf- > ianaplan-icg-response > > Try " > > Regards > Brian > > On 08/01/2015 07:05, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >>> I am afraid this is incorrect. The WG consensus said that it was not > >> necessary to specify the exact supplemental agreements to be > >> negotiated - that this should be left to the IAOC. My understanding > >> of the document, and my basis for agreeing to rough consensus, was > >> that the IAOC could pursue these or not, as it saw fit. > >> > >> I think we may be trying to say the same thing. The document > >> discusses what needs to be achieved. The WG's opinion of what is > >> necessary for the transition. But the WG did not want to put into the > >> document (a) detailed contractual language as that is an IAOC task or > >> (b) additional requests beyond the ones listed in the document. > >> However, the IAOC certainly is in charge of all specific contract language > already, and will be also in this case. > >> They will also consider any additional elements that they think will > >> be useful or needed, as they will always. > > > > Great, this is my understanding, too. So you should modify the assessment > of my comments because they say "The recommendation also states that the > advocated actions are in line with the current IANAPLAN draft. The IAOC has > taken this input for consideration. It should be noted that these > recommendations were discussed as part of the WG deliberations, however. > The WG consensus did not agree with the recommendations." > > > > That's the part that is not correct. > > > > The WG consensus was that there should not be detailed contractual > language in the document, as you say. It did not, however, foreclose or > negate the suggestions I made for future IAOC requests, it simply said that > they should not be specified or required by the IANAPlan document. The > IAOC retains the ability to request them if it thinks it appropriate in the near > term negotiations. > > > > I hope you understand the distinction. It was crucial to achieving rough > consensus. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ianaplan mailing list > > Ianaplan(a)ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > >

2 1

Update from the CRISP Team (Numbers community)
by Paul Wilson Jan. 9, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

Dear Alissa and all, Here’s an update on the Internet numbers community proposal. All the best Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: Re: Consulting you as ICG member Fwd: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments > Date: 9 January 2015 12:39:46 pm AEST > To: Paul Wilson <pwilson(a)apnic.net> > > Hi Paul, > > > I would appreciate it if you could share the following message to Alissa > Cooper as the Chair of the ICG, and if appropriate, to the ICG. > > > Thanks, > Izumi > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Alissa, > > > I would like to share the status of developing the Internet numbers > community's response to the Request For Proposals issued by the IANA > Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). > > As you are aware, the draft response has been prepared by the > Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team, based on its > role to integrate the input from each of the 5 RIR regions and finalize > the initial RIR submission to the ICG, in response to the RFP. > > The key dates in developing the response from the number resources > communities are as below, and we are pleased to share that our work is > currently in progress as scheduled. > > Key dates: > First draft comments close: 5 Jan 2015 > Second draft to be published: 8 Jan 2015 > Second draft comments close: 12 Jan 2015 > Final proposal to be sent to ICG: 15 Jan 2015 > > We are now calling for the final comments from the global number > resources community on the <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list, for the > second version of the draft published on 8th Jan 2015. > > Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including the draft > response to the ICG (all versions including outdated), recordings, > minutes and agendas of all CRISP teleconferences and a public archive of > the internal CRISP team mailing list, are available at: > https://nro.net/crisp-team > > Please feel free to me know if you have any questions about the response > to be submitted to the ICG for the number resources component of the > IANA transition. > > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani > Chair, The Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP Team) >

1 0

Proposal finalization process and updated timeline posted
by Alissa Cooper Jan. 8, 2015

Jan. 8, 2015

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-07-en

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
by Jari Arkko Jan. 7, 2015

Jan. 7, 2015

> Try "The WG consensus did not agree with including the recommendations.” I’m happy with Brian’s formulation. Thanks. Jari

1 0

Time for teleconferences in January 2015
by Patrik Fältström Jan. 7, 2015

Jan. 7, 2015

After looking at the Doodle, we have decided to have the calls as follows: Jan 14 call at 20:00 UTC Jan 21 call at 03:00 UTC Jan 28 call at 13:00 UTC Patrik

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
by Milton L Mueller Jan. 7, 2015

Jan. 7, 2015

Jari: > -----Original Message----- > goes on to "provide information to the IETF's leadership regarding what the > unresolved issues were, why it is important to resolve them, and how it > might respond to them with supplemental agreements". The > recommendation also states that the advocated actions are in line with the > current IANAPLAN draft. The IAOC has taken this input for consideration. It > should be noted that these recommendations were discussed as part of the > WG deliberations, however. The WG consensus did not agree with the > recommendations. I am afraid this is incorrect. The WG consensus said that it was not necessary to specify the exact supplemental agreements to be negotiated - that this should be left to the IAOC. My understanding of the document, and my basis for agreeing to rough consensus, was that the IAOC could pursue these or not, as it saw fit.

2 2

an IAB document under review: draft-iab-iana-principles
by Jari Arkko Jan. 7, 2015

Jan. 7, 2015

I wanted to point folks to a document which has been in progress in the IAB. The document does not discuss specific IANA arrangements or or approaches to transition, but rather points out some underlying principles. It has been out for community comment in the IETF for the last month, and the IAB is considering approving it. But the IAB would welcome your feedback on this topic as well. If you have comments, please send them before Wednesday January 21st. Here is the summary of the document: The registry system is built on trust and mutual cooperation. The use of the registries is voluntary and is not enforced by mandates or certification policies. While the use of registries is voluntary, it is noted that the success of the Internet creates enormous pressure to use Internet protocols and the registries associated with them. This document provides principles for the operation of IANA registries, ensuring that protocol identifiers have consistent meanings and interpretations across all implementations and deployments, and thus providing the necessary trust in the registries. This document is a split off from draft-iab-iana-framework-02. This document contains principles that were scattered in various places in the IANA Framework, pulling them into one place. The IANA Framework has been under discussion since February 2011. The document is available here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-iana-principles-04 Jari

1 0

Interpreter availability
by Patrik Fältström Jan. 7, 2015

Jan. 7, 2015

All, Here is the updated schema for availability for the interpreters for the upcoming calls. Patrik

1 0