February 2015 - Internal-cg

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Next steps?
by Alissa Cooper March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

This is relevant to some of the questions Wolf-Ulrich has raised about implementation, so I’m forwarding it. Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Next steps? > Date: January 26, 2015 at 6:12:27 PM PST > To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Hello Seun and colleagues on the IANAXFER list, > > > > Thank you once again Seun for your question about the next steps. > I think this is a useful question for others in the community as well. > > As you are aware, our proposal to the ICG describes high level > principles about the Review Committee and the SLA including "IANA > Service Level Agreement Principles" in the proposal, so RIRs will > consider implementation based on this guidance. > > Our role as the CRISP team is to provide guidance to the RIRs in > the implementation of the proposal, and the details and process of > implementation of the proposal is the responsibility of the RIRs. The > charter of the review committee and actual contract text are part of > implementation of the proposal which is the responsibility of the RIRs. > > Having said this, the CRISP Team believes it is important for the > community to have clear visibility that RIRs acknowledges this proposal > which references actions by them. > > Therefore, after Step2 of the ICG's latest timeline, when the proposals > by all three operational communities are consolidated by the ICG, the > CRISP Team plans to formally inform the executives of the RIRs about the > proposal submitted to the ICG which references actions by the RIRs. > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en… > > We expect that there will be formal acknowledgement from the five RIRs > about this, so it is clear to the community that the RIRs will take the > appropriate steps to implement the proposal from the Number Resources > community. We trust each RIR will consult with their respective > communities as needed in preparing the SLA, and the Review Committee is > to be established in an open and bottom-up manner, as we have described > in the proposal. > > I hope this clarifies the role of the CRISP team and RIRs in future steps. > > > > Regards, > Izumi Okutani > The CRISP Team > > On 2015/01/22 23:45, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> Great thanks for the first level clarification Izumi. >> >> Cheers! >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> wrote: >> >>> Hello Seun, >>> >>> >>> Just from what I can answer for now, >>> >>>>> - SLA requirements >>> >>> "IANA Service Level Agreement Principles" are described in Section >>> III.A.3 of our proposal, as you are probably aware. This lists >>> principles and elements to be included in the SLA. >>> >>> Both of the processes listed below will be lead by the RIRs and not the >>> CRISP Team. I trust the RIRs will start the process, so that we have >>> these them ready before the transition. >>> >>>>> - Charter of review committee >>>>> - Contract actual text >>> >>> I need to double check if there is anything more we can say at this >>> stage as the CRISP Team - Thanks for your question and patience! >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Izumi >>> >>> On 2015/01/22 13:29, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>> Hello Izumi, >>>> >>>> You may have missed this mail, could you/or any crisp team kindly provide >>>> update? >>>> >>>> Just to clarify (in line of recent development), not all the 3 items are >>>> expected to be developed by this WG but will be good to know when those >>>> processes will start. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>> On 21 Jan 2015 09:37, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Izumi, CRISP team >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again to you and the entire team. I just want to ask about what >>> the >>>>> next line of action will be? i.e are we to wait until the ICG release >>> their >>>>> final proposal? or while we wait on ICG, we also start the drafting >>> process >>>>> for the following: >>>>> >>>>> - Charter of review committee >>>>> - SLA requirements >>>>> - Contract actual text >>>>> >>>>> Thanks as i look forward to your response >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >>>>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: >>> +2348035233535**alt >>>>> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng >>>>> <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* >>>>> >>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

4 4

Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference
by Alissa Cooper March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment. (1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week) (2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>. (3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21) (4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html> Thanks, Alissa

7 12

Dates for meeting in Buenos Aires
by Patrik Fältström March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

All, I just received information that we do have room and interpreters etc for a meeting Thursday-Friday before the ICANN meeting, i.e. June 18-19. I propose we have meetings as follows: June 18: 09:00 - 18:00 June 19: 09:00 - 18:00 Patrik

12 19

Minutes of the 25 February 2015 teleconference
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 28, 2015

Feb. 28, 2015

Hello All, The minutes of the 25 February 2015 teleconference (ICG Call #12) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/pr24n5x Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, 6-7 February 2015
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 28, 2015

Feb. 28, 2015

Hello All, The minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting (6-7 February 2015) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z5ytdn7szgpvnvd/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- february-2015.docx?dl=0 and https://www.dropbox.com/s/b2ailjn3iq446up/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day2-7- february-2015.docx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer

3 4

Timeline v8
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 28, 2015

Feb. 28, 2015

I took an action on the Feb 25 call to draft an update to our current timeline document to reflect our discussions about how we will proceed. Since I’m going on leave, I offer the text in the attached for discussion without first coordinating it with the co-chairs and Manal, all of whom should feel free to comment on it just as others should. The updated file is also in dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1c1efipctyvchu/TimelineDiscussion-v8.docx?dl=0 Here is the text of the note that I added to the document, which tries to reflect the discussion about this on the mailing list and on the call: March 2014 Update: The timeline below was created around the assumption that the ICG would receive proposals from each of the three operational communities in January 2015. Given that the names community proposal will take more time, the ICG will proceed with as many of the steps described below as possible for the proposals received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities while the names community concludes its work. This will include ICG members informally seeking provisional comments from their respective communities about the combined draft proposal containing the protocol parameters and numbers proposals. ICG members expect to continue to work together with the names community to help ensure that compatibility between the three proposals can be achieved most efficiently. The ICG will revisit the timeline below in the future as the proposal development work progresses. Best, Alissa

3 2

Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Patrik, Mohamed, the secretariat and I have worked on an edited version of the proposal finalization process and a new timeline spreadsheet that corresponds to the edits (attached and in Dropbox at https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zmvchgfl7fi2al/proposal-finalization-process-v6-… and https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0) In the proposal finalization process: - The sub-steps are now numbered. We added proposed time frames to each of the numbered sub-steps. In the F2F meeting we heard support for maintaining the original time frames, so we did not modify them here. Note, however, that in Step 4 this is basically impossible — we allotted ourselves 4 weeks to obtain public comments, analyze them, send issues to the communities, and produce the final proposal! We put a note in about that being unrealistic. - In steps 1 and 2, we have reversed the order of the “if” clauses concerning whether or not operational community work is needed. It is much easier to depict the steps graphically if the potential OC work is listed first and then the milestone is at the end. We didn’t change any of the substance, just the order in which the words appear. - For steps that are milestones, they say “milestone” rather than listing a time span. In the timeline spreadsheet: - We depicted the original timeline/time spans, as reflected in the edited proposal finalization process, in two ways — first on two separate sheets, and then on one combined sheet. Not sure which one is easier for people to follow so we included both. - I counted up the weeks in our original plan and it was about 28 weeks, or 6.5 months, from Jan 15 to Jul 31. But because the weeks-to-months mapping is not exact (e.g., some months have more than 4 weeks, partial weeks, etc.), if we had mapped that plan out generically week-by-week in the spreadsheet, it would have totaled 26 weeks (4 weeks/month, at 6.5 months, gives 26 weeks). The "Original Timeline with CWG Dependency" tabs lists 31 weeks, which has the original 26 weeks plus the 5 additional weeks built into Step 4 in the proposal finalization process. So this is closer to 8 months rather than the 6 number we were discussing on Saturday, if we stick closely to the proposal finalization process and assume that we will need the operational community work periods, which we may or may not. - We’ve included an alternative timeline as well, called Optimized, to respond to what people were saying in the room about optimizing and parallelizing our work. There is a note on the spreadsheet itself that explains the optimizations. We would need to decide as a group about whether we want to go down the "Original with CWG Dependency" path or the Optimized path. All of the steps are still there and they use the previously defined time frames, but they occur more in parallel. Please send your feedback and opinions about the documents. Thanks, Alissa

12 30

ICG face-to-face meeting #5 - travel support
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Dear ICG Members, As communicated by Patrik, your ICG face-to-face meeting #5 will be held in Buenos Aires on Thursday 18 - Friday 19 June 2015. In accordance with <https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20 > ICANN's travel support guidelines <https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20 > and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting. As needed, ICANN may also offer support to ICG members to accommodate their participation in other relevant events taking place during the ICANN 53 <http://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/> week. Please note that 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 (17-26 June) 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. We invite you to flag any travel support requests you may have using admin(a)icgsec.asia <mailto:admin@icgsec.asia> by Friday 13 March 2015. Thanks, Best regards, Jennifer

1 0

Conclusion of Step 2 assessment for IETF+RIR proposals
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

I took an action on our Feb 25 call to confirm on the mailing list whether we have concluded our Step 2 assessment of the protocol parameters and numbers proposals. As a reminder, Step 2 of our proposal finalization process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali…> involves assessing the proposals together for the following: > A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner? > > B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal? > > C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination? A number of people on the call (Milton, Lynn, Patrik, Daniel, Joe) expressed their satisfaction that, together, the protocol parameters and numbers proposals we have received meet the above criteria and that we can conclude our Step 2 assessment for these two proposals. If others have thoughts to share on this topic, whether in support of concluding the Step 2 assessment of these proposals or otherwise, please send them to the list. Note that of course we will revisit this Step 2 assessment process for all three proposals together after we receive a names proposal. Thanks, Alissa

2 1

REMINDER: ICG Teleconferences Mar 2015 - Doodle Poll to act on
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

Hello All, A friendly reminder to those who have not selected their preferences to please fill out the doodle poll to determine the exact times for the for the upcoming ICG teleconferences in March 2015. Doodle poll: http://doodle.com/z8tr4bn6cnw3chb3 - Weds Mar 11 at around 12:00 UTC - Weds Mar 25 at around 20:00 UTC Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0