February 2015 - Internal-cg

Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
by Manal Ismail Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Dear All .. Please find attached steps for handling community comments received on ICG Forum .. I hope this accurately reflects the discussion we had in Singapore .. I have created a new document as it describes a different approach and was too messy in track changes .. The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wish to reference .. I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake of time .. Hope to have this settled soon .. Kind Regards --Manal

5 11

Step 2 assessment
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 22, 2015

Feb. 22, 2015

Hi all, Given the sense at our face-to-face meeting that folks wanted to proceed with our assessment of the protocol parameters and numbers proposals while we await the names proposal, I’d like to start a discussion about getting that going. 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? We seem to have already tackled (A) during our individual assessment phase. Other than awaiting the responses from the IETF and RIR communities to the IPR question we asked them and the clarifications/summaries that individual ICG members agreed to provide after the F2F, do people feel that there is any outstanding work to be done to complete (A) for the two proposals received? For (B) and (C), I would suggest that we make these an agenda item on an upcoming call (either the next one or the one after it - Patrik is working on the scheduling), and that people think about these items and share their thoughts about them on the list in the meantime. Does anyone think we should proceed differently? Thanks, Alissa

10 16

REMINDER - ICG Call #12 - 25 February at 04:00-05:30 UTC
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 21, 2015

Feb. 21, 2015

Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #12 is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 25 February 2015** at 04:00-05:30 UTC See timezone conversion here: http://tinyurl.com/ocq9a5x Announcement to be posted. You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and I will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let me know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call. Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream. Agenda circulated by Alissa: (1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See: < http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html >. (3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See: < http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html >. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out. Thanks, Best regards ICG Secretariat Team

1 0

Summary of internally resolved questions re the protocol parameters and numbers proposals
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 20, 2015

Feb. 20, 2015

Hi All, Attached is a chart produced under the action item: Secretariat to summarize questions/answers resolved internally about the Protocol parameters proposal and Numbers proposal discussed. It is also available on Dropbox in the FAQ subfolder here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/oqdu87v60ztrowe/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolv ed%20questions-v0.xlsx?dl=0 Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat

3 4

Re: [Internal-cg] status of distribution for secretariat selection
by Joseph Alhadeff Feb. 20, 2015

Feb. 20, 2015

As long as the archive will be maintained. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Hartmut Richard Glaser [glaser(a)cgi.br] Received: Thursday, 19 Feb 2015, 12:24PM To: Elise Gerich [elise.gerich(a)icann.org] internal-cg(a)icann.org [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] status of distribution for secretariat selection +1 agreed ...!!! =========================== On 19/02/15 16:22, Elise Gerich wrote: > Hi, > May we (ICANN) retire the email distribution list that was established > to discuss the selection of a secretariat now that the selection > process has been concluded? > > Thank you, > -- Elise > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

4 3

ICG Teleconference Feb-Mar 2015 - Doodle Poll to act on
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

Hello All, Happy Chinese New Year to those celebrating, and wishing the everyone a good Wednesday/Thursday. Please fill out the following doodle poll to determine the exact times for the upcoming teleconferences scheduled: http://doodle.com/qu7d285rxuckus3c - Weds Feb 25 at around 04:00 UTC - Weds Mar 11 at around 12:00 UTC - Weds Mar 25 at around 20:00 UTC Best Regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat

4 5

status of distribution for secretariat selection
by Elise Gerich Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

Hi, May we (ICANN) retire the email distribution list that was established to discuss the selection of a secretariat now that the selection process has been concluded? Thank you, -- Elise

3 2

Timeline for CWG
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

All, I want to share this work item from the CWG with the ICG. It is a snapshot of where the CWG do believe they are. They do believe they can deliver before the next ICANN meeting. Regards, Patrik P.S. Thanks to Michael Niebel that pointed this document out to me.

1 0

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

Feb. 17, 2015

Kavouss and All, The coast is getting clearer as to the interdependencies in tasks of delivering a complete proposal to NTIA. I do not think we misunderstood you Kavouss, I personally thought you were refering to the output of CCWG to be a direct input to the ICG. My understanding is that it would be an indirect input through the proposal of the CWG- IANA and l also agree with Alissa's analysis on the ICG's work relative to Steve's statement. The answers to her two questions are yes, yes. However, it would all depend on when CWG- IANA is able to submit its proposal. Milton captured it correctly as "we do not know yet". As the different co-Chairs of the Work Groups continue to coordinate and collaborate, the tasks timelines will be better managed. Just to be clear, Kavouss, we shall all listen to the song and appreciate the good work of the singer. You are right to the extent of the input coming through the CWG-IANA. I hope you all arrived safely from Singapore like I did. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Date: 14/02/2015 01:25 (GMT+01:00) To: "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs(a)dyalog.net> Cc: ICG <internal-cg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] statement Steve Crocker Dear All I am happy that gradually we are convinced that our first assumption that " there is no need that ICG receive any input from CCWG on accountability is not valid. I was sure that we need such information on accountability indirectly i. e . From CCWG work stream 1 to CWG and from CWG to ICG . However.some ICG member mislead us and disagreed with me . Now they realised they my statement made verbally at CCWG and ICG calls were right Let us be more clear and listen to the SONG and forget the SINGER Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:03, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs(a)dyalog.net> wrote: > > Thanks Alissa for highlighting the timeline aspects. I agree with your conclusions. > > In addition, it's worth noting that at ICANN-52, the Chair of the ICANN Board publicly recognized that "When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly AND WITHOUT MODIFICATION to NTIA (my emphasis)". Looking back a few months, when some on the Board were adamant that they had a "right" to modify the Transition plan before sending it on to NTIA, I consider the current Board position to be a significant and welcome change. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > À: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> > Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg(a)icann.org> > Envoyé: Vendredi 13 Février 2015 02:05:14 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] statement Steve Crocker > > > > The statement has been posted here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en > > > I think the first question we should tackle as a group is whether we think this set of expectations as articulated by the Board is reasonable and feasible for the communities and for us to meet. Personally, my answer to both questions is yes. But I’d like to confirm that others feel the same way. > > > If we do think what the Board has set out is reasonable and feasible, then I agree with Joe that we should incorporate this information into our timeline discussion. Under our original timeline that we published in the fall, we would have been roughly in line with what the Board suggests; that is, we were aiming to submit the transition proposal to the Board in July and the CCWG is aiming to submit in June < http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150130/efcb6371… >. However, as we know, our timeline was predicated on us receiving all three community proposals sooner than we now know that we will. > > > So if we look at the two alternative timelines I put together last weekend (re-attached here and in Dropbox < https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0 >) — "Original with CWG Dependency" and “Optimized” — I think it’s fairly obvious that there is a good chance of us not being prepared to submit the transition proposal to the Board until after July. Thus, if we adopt either of those as our revised timeline, I think what we would need to do is continue to coordinate closely with the CCWG to ensure that they do not end up submitting their proposal to the Board too far in advance of when we think we will finish (or vice versa). And since we already have good coordination with them, I don’t think much else would need to be done now. > > > I do think it’s important for us to decide on how we’re revising our timeline so that we know the timing of *our* next steps, and so that we can communicate to the IETF and RIR communities about the timing we expect for their next steps while we await the CWG proposal. So I hope folks are looking at the revised timeline proposals and thinking about sending their feedback in the timeline thread on the list. > > > Alissa > > > > > On Feb 12, 2015, at 7:13 AM, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com > wrote: > > > > How would we factor this in the revision to our timeline? > > On 2/12/2015 4:40 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 5

Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
by WUKnoben Feb. 17, 2015

Feb. 17, 2015

In my assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously referring to the “names and protocols” proposals (see attached). I meant the “numbers and protocols” proposals. This is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: WUKnoben Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:10 AM To: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: ICANN52 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

4 5