February 2015 - Internal-cg

Re: [Internal-cg] statement Steve Crocker
by WUKnoben Feb. 17, 2015

Feb. 17, 2015

Please find here the statement as read. We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. It will also be posted Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

7 8

Comment received on the ICG forum
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 16, 2015

Feb. 16, 2015

Hello All, Please find the link to the comment received on the icg-forum on 10 Feb below: - Review of proposals for completness [sic] - http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00031.html Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

ICANN52
by WUKnoben Feb. 15, 2015

Feb. 15, 2015

Dear colleagues, my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work: a.. see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair: << We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. >> He’s referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability. Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline accordingly. a.. Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation. From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness. I’d like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and the potential consequences. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

7 13

Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
by mnuduma Feb. 14, 2015

Feb. 14, 2015

+1 @ Kavouss. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Date: 14/02/2015 02:07 (GMT+01:00) To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org,ccwg-accountability1@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 Keith I strongly recommend that no action be taken by co chairs who in fact are the origin of this misunderstanding The situation is clear . ICG will receive input from CCWG indirectly through CWG , the latter will take into account output of Work stream 1 of CCWG No need any intervention of ch chairs at all Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 23:40, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> wrote: Thank you Kavouss. Since this has been a recurring discussion, perhaps our Co-Chairs could send a request for clarification to Dr. Crocker to ensure we're all on the same page. In my mind, it's really a question of formality...the CCWG is not required to submit anything to the ICG, but the ICG may certainly receive input from the CCWG and assess it accordingly. I have no objection to us doing so. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Keith No it does not Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by ICG in a direct or indirect manner. Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met. By the way you may be in the same camp of the person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you associate yourself is not correct Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> wrote: Hi Kavouss, I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups. Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks. Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG. That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun. We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG. I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks. Regards, Keith On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> wrote: On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: 'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place. My view: There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from". The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other. There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs. Because of that, coordination is needed. But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do. Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

statement Steve Crocker
by WUKnoben Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

Steve Crockers statement on behalf of the ICANN Board done at the ICANN Public Forum today: << LET ME GO TO THE STATEMENT RELATED TO THE PROPOSALS HERE. SO WE HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING -- REQUESTING CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW ICANN WILL HANDLE RECEIPT OF THE PROPOSAL FROM THE ICG AND THE WORK STREAM ONE PROPOSAL FROM THE CCWG. WE HOPE THE FOLLOWING WILL BE HELPFUL. NTIA IS EXPECTING COORDINATED PROPOSALS FROM BOTH GROUPS. THEY CANNOT ACT ON JUST ONE. FURTHER, THEY EXPECT THE ICG PROPOSAL WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS PROPOSED BY THE CCWG. WE ARE HEARTENED IN OUR OWN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG'S PROPOSAL. SO I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL. WE'VE TRIED TO LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE DISPARATE NUANCES OF WHAT OTHERWISE ARE ALL INTENDED TO AIM AT THE SAME TARGET. >> Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

3 4

IANA session at ICANN 52
by WUKnoben Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

This morning, I attended the IANA session as some few ICG members did. It was a very concise presentation given by IANA senior staff. I highly recommend the session and accompanying presentation be viewed http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Hello All, As reviewed by the ICG chairs, please find the list of action items from the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4 below: 1. Secretariat to summarize questions/answers resolved internally about the protocol parameters proposal and numbers proposal discussed. 2. Arkko to compile a list of for a request for information from the protocol parameters community re jurisdiction, NTIA oversight and send it to internal-cg list. 3. Wilson to request clarification from CRISP team, questions put forth by Arasteh (regarding Section II.B.2 and III.A of the numbers proposal). 4. ICG chairs to review details of the proposal finalization process and refine ICG timeline with assistance from Secretariat. 5. Ismail, Arasteh, St. Amour, Alhadeff, Subrenat to continue working on community comments handling document with suggestions put forward by other ICG members. 6. ICG to continue to discuss and agree on talking points and ICG chairs to send bullet points for Monday session on the internal-cg list. 7. Fältström to communicate with CWG-IANA and CCWG-Accountability before coordinating ICG teleconference schedule. Best Regards, Jennifer

12 31

Re: [Internal-cg] Larry's comments at GAC
by Narelle Clark Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Joe It should be addressed in section IV bullet point 5 from our RFP. Therefore the assessments should apply due diligence there also. Narelle -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network Suite 402 Level 4, 55 Mountain St Ultimo NSW 2007 Ph: 02 9288 4000 Direct: 02 9288 4007 Fax: 02 9288 4019 TTY: 02 9281 5322 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> wrote: Two statements of interest: 1. Don't even bother me with a partial proposal... 2. He pushed the names community to provide information on how long it would take them to implement the proposal? Is that something we should add more specifically to our questions? I don't think we've explored that dimension too much? Joe _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

4 3

Comments received on the ICG forum
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Hi All, Please find the links to the comments received on the icg-forum on 4 Feb and 7 Feb 2015 below: - The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" - http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00028.html - The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process - http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00029.html - Community feedback to the CRISP Team Response - http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00030.html Please note that there was a delay with the posting of these emails to the icg-forum web archive: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/, the web-team is looking into and resolving the issues to ensure that all emails sent to icg-forum(a)icann.org <mailto:icg-forum@icann.org> going forward will be posted in a timely manner. Best Regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
by Joseph Alhadeff Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Would also be fine with "potential incompatability"... Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Russ Mundy [mundy(a)tislabs.com] Received: Monday, 09 Feb 2015, 12:52PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com] CC: Russ Mundy [mundy(a)tislabs.com] internal-cg(a)icann.org [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP I too would be fine with a multi-step process if that’s needed. One of the reasons I used the term “incompatibility” in my proposed alternative wording is based on what our charter says we’re supposed to be doing - I’m not really certain what the difference is between “inconsistency” and “incompatibility” but our charter uses “compatibility" but does not include the term “consistency". Russ M On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:11 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> wrote: > I would agree with Milton's observation. We are currently observing an inconsistency, not necessarily an incompatibility. If they wish to resolve the inconsistency, then there is no need to get to the question of incompatibility. An absolute incompatibility would be if one wanted a transfer of IP and the other opposed a transfer. Both seem to be happy with the transfer with a question of when it should occur. Would there be a concern in the IETF if the transfer occurs early? > > Joe > On 2/8/2015 10:55 PM, Russ Mundy wrote: >> >> On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >> >>> The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them? >> >> >> Alissa, >> >> Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above: >> >> The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible? >> >> Russ >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 4