- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

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

Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 9, 2015

Feb. 9, 2015

I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then. --- The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.” 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? Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

8 15

Handling process complaints
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

I’ve included an item on the draft agenda for the January 28 call about handling community process complaints. We have received a few: Richard Hill on IETF process: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00017.html Richard Hill on RIR process: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00020.html Guru Acharya on RIR process: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00024.html And there are some follow-up messages that you can see on the forum. http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/ I’ve been forwarding these to the appropriate communities, but I think we need to be a little clearer about what we are expecting here. If we want responses from the communities, we should ask for them directly. If we go down that route, we should probably set a deadline for receiving complaints about this first phase of the process so that we can give the communities clear guidance about what they need to respond to and when. We can discuss this on the call but I wanted to get the discussion going on the mailing list first. Thanks, Alissa

11 34

Revised action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

Hi All, Please see the revised action items list below, taking into account suggestions and edits received from ICG members so far: 1. Secretariat to summarize questions/answers resolved internally about the Protocol parameters proposal and Numbers proposal discussed. 2. Arkko to do write up of jurisdiction and NTIA oversight in the Protocol parameters operational community. 3. Wilson to do write up clarification regarding 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, Karrenberg to continue working on community comments handling document with suggestions put forward by other ICG members. 6. ICG chairs to send bullet points (based on ICG discussion during the face-to-face meeting) for Monday session to the internal-cg list. 7. Fältström to communicate with CWG-IANA and CCWG-Accountability before coordinating ICG teleconference schedule. 8. ICG chairs to formally transmit question (formulated during the ICG face-to-face meeting and finalized on the internal-cg list) to both the Protocol parameters community and Numbers community. Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

Talking points
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

Hi, Here is a first cut at the talking points for ICANN52. As you all know, all of us have been starting talking with people (and people have talked with us) and this is what I feel we have been saying. Note: this is the basis for _talking_ points. It is not statements, and specifically not statements to be given in writing. That said, of course this email, and the talking points, are available in writing to the public :-) Patrik

1 0

Monday session 10:15-13:00
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

All, After looking around for a moderator for the Q&A portion, and either finding people not being on site, or people that rejected the invitation to moderate, I talked with Matthew Shears that many of you probably know, and he agreed to moderate. Patrik

4 5

Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015
by Narelle Clark Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

Two weeks is also fine by me. Send the question. N -- Narelle Clark Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> wrote: On 8.02.15 10:18 , Patrik Fältström wrote: > So far we have talked about 2 weeks timer for the response when we are > interacting with the OC's. I remember that we would request a response within 14 calendar days for questions to other bodies from earlier planning discussions. I have never been quite clear whether that included public comment periods. But that is not relevant here. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015
by Narelle Clark Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

I was thinking 21 days. Narelle -- Narelle Clark Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: Alissa is awaiting suggestions for a date for a response to this question. My suggestion is that we request that they tell us within 30 days _how_ they plan to go about resolving this issue (e.g., meetings, etc.) and once they respond in that way we ask them to suggest a timeline for how quickly they think they can resolve it. From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 8:50 PM To: Jennifer Chung; 'ICG' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015 Jennifer, You forgot the question we agreed to send jointly to the numbers and protocol parameters group. I was responsible for this, but yesterday when I said it was “done” I meant that the question had been approved by the group. I do not think it was “finished” in the sense that we have formally transmitted it to the two OCs. I would like to know how that will be done, and when. For everyone’s reference, here is the agreed question: The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org<http://iana.org> domain as a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://IANA.ORG> domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://IANA.ORG> domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.” 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? From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 6:40 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 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

1 0