- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

community information
by WUKnoben Sept. 5, 2014

Sept. 5, 2014

All, here’s some text to be used on https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community, Domain Names: << On the initiative of ICANN related communities a Cross Community Working Group (CWG) is being chartered to conduct the work for a proposal for the IANA stewardship transition. Membership in the CWG is open to members appointed by the chartering organizations. In addition, the CWG will be open to any interested person as an observer. The draft charter can be found at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Documents >> I would appreciate the secretariat inserting this in the “Domain Names” box. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 2

Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [ianatransition] RFP for Transition Proposal Issued by ICG
by Narelle Clark Sept. 5, 2014

Sept. 5, 2014

Yes, my understanding was this meant as a draft for community feedback *before* requesting responses. What's going on? Narelle -- Narelle Clark 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 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> wrote: Someone seriously jumped the gun, also on the secretariat. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ianatransition] RFP for Transition Proposal Issued by ICG Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:05:27 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> To: ianatransition(a)icann.org <ianatransition(a)icann.org> For original post, see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en Request for Proposals (RFP) for IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Issued by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group // <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2…>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#>// <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2…>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#> The IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) today issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking complete formal responses from the "operational communities" of IANA (i.e. those with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters). *The target deadline for all complete formal responses to this RFP is 31 December 2014.* Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties. During the development of their proposals, the operational communities are requested to consult and work with other affected parties. Likewise, in order to help the ICG maintain its light coordination role, all other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in community processes. Information about ongoing community processes and how to participate in them can be found here <https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community>. Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in developing their responses, so that all community members may fully participate in and observe those processes. Communities are also asked to actively seek out and encourage wider participation by any other parties with interest in their response. Additionally, while the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals from the operational communities only, and that all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG's own processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time via email to icg-forum(a)icann.org <mailt:cg-forum@icann.org>. Comments will be publicly archived at http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum The full RFP can be found here <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en…> [PDF, 95 KB]. RFP Activities Schedule: RFP Published 3 September 2014 Closing Date for Submission of Proposals 31 December 2014

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
by Joseph Alhadeff Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

By a proxy do you mean another icc member who would be able to participate if there's a conflicted time for the principal? Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de] Received: Thursday, 04 Sep 2014, 8:03PM To: Joe Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com] Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk [Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk] CC: internal-cg(a)icann.org [internal-cg(a)icann.org] alissa(a)cooperw.in [alissa(a)cooperw.in] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Yes, this is the intention. Quorum of members shall apply only in case a decision is due. Meeting attendance in general is a different aspect. We’re going to deal with more and more details which may be important to fix depending on how we want to proceed. One example could be proxy for members being absent from a meeting. To consider all communities in the way I’ve suggested may impose a problem to those represented by just 1 member (ASO, ICC/BASIS). In these cases proxy could help. Throughout our discourse various levels have been put forward to reach quorum or decision. In the paper attached I’ve tried to make it more transparent and comparable re numbers and “quality” of these figures. Maybe it could be complemented. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Joe Alhadeff Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:51 AM To: Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk Cc: internal-cg(a)icann.org ; alissa(a)cooperw.in ; Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building I think there are perhaps two amendments I would suggest to Martin's comments. 1. Quorum as a concept should probably be more clearly applied only to voting/ultimate decision-making. In its normal usage it also applies to when a meeting can be held based on attendance of members. 2. I agree that operational communities have a special role, but also believe that we need to consider all communities. Is there a way to keep the text as is and address Martin's concern in IV instead? Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk To: alissa(a)cooperw.in, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de, internal-cg(a)icann.org Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 5:08:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Thank you Alissa: this reflects my concerns well. I note that we did this discussion entirely by e-mail, so I can understand how Wolf-Ulrich missed it. I have a couple of other comments - all are in the marked-up draft attached and placed in drop-box. Best Martin -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 03 September 2014 11:29 To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks for your work on this. On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" wrote: > >* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added > the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of >the ICG > communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally >opposed. > That would mean a formal written objection by the community >leadership on > behalf of their community. > I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read: "After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.” Alissa _______________________________________________ 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 2

Fwd: [ianatransition] RFP for Transition Proposal Issued by ICG
by Daniel Karrenberg Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

Someone seriously jumped the gun, also on the secretariat. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ianatransition] RFP for Transition Proposal Issued by ICG Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:05:27 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> To: ianatransition(a)icann.org <ianatransition(a)icann.org> For original post, see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en Request for Proposals (RFP) for IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Issued by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group // <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2…>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#>// <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2…>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#>// <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en#> The IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) today issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking complete formal responses from the "operational communities" of IANA (i.e. those with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters). *The target deadline for all complete formal responses to this RFP is 31 December 2014.* Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties. During the development of their proposals, the operational communities are requested to consult and work with other affected parties. Likewise, in order to help the ICG maintain its light coordination role, all other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in community processes. Information about ongoing community processes and how to participate in them can be found here <https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community>. Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in developing their responses, so that all community members may fully participate in and observe those processes. Communities are also asked to actively seek out and encourage wider participation by any other parties with interest in their response. Additionally, while the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals from the operational communities only, and that all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG's own processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time via email to icg-forum(a)icann.org <mailt:cg-forum@icann.org>. Comments will be publicly archived at http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum The full RFP can be found here <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en…> [PDF, 95 KB]. RFP Activities Schedule: RFP Published 3 September 2014 Closing Date for Submission of Proposals 31 December 2014

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
by Joe Alhadeff Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

I think there are perhaps two amendments I would suggest to Martin's comments. 1. Quorum as a concept should probably be more clearly applied only to voting/ultimate decision-making. In its normal usage it also applies to when a meeting can be held based on attendance of members. 2. I agree that operational communities have a special role, but also believe that we need to consider all communities. Is there a way to keep the text as is and address Martin's concern in IV instead? Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk To: alissa(a)cooperw.in, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de, internal-cg(a)icann.org Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 5:08:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Thank you Alissa: this reflects my concerns well. I note that we did this discussion entirely by e-mail, so I can understand how Wolf-Ulrich missed it. I have a couple of other comments - all are in the marked-up draft attached and placed in drop-box. Best Martin -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 03 September 2014 11:29 To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks for your work on this. On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" wrote: > >* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added > the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of >the ICG > communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally >opposed. > That would mean a formal written objection by the community >leadership on > behalf of their community. > I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read: "After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.” Alissa _______________________________________________ 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 3

RFP feedback from IETF community
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

I circulated the communities RFP to the IETF community and I wanted to relay back two pieces of feedback that were received. 1) As I think Elise had pointed out earlier, the document uses the terms IANA “functions," “services" and “activities.” It might not be clear if these are all words for the same thing, or if they mean different things. If they are the same, perhaps we should choose just one term. If there are differences, a short explanation of those differences could be useful. 2) In Section IV about transition implications, we might want to include an additional bullet point about “How long the proposals in Section III are expected to take to complete and any intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” Thanks, Alissa

2 1

Test
by Mary Uduma Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

Mary

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Centralized information portal and RFP with link
by Alice Jansen Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

Dear ICG members, The RfP was published yesterday and may be found at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en… Translations will be published as soon as available. The announcement can be found at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en Thank you Best regards Alice From: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 8:23 AM To: ICG <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Centralized information portal and RFP with link The centralized information portal is live: <https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community>. Please circulate it with your constituencies. I added the link to the RFP (attached and in Dropbox). Alice, could we get this version published on the web site as a stable draft and make an announcement about its publication? Thanks, Alissa

1 0

Consensus Building , your v5 doc.
by Kavouss Arasteh Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

Dear All, It seems to me that you have not even examine my proposal sent to you on this doc. Your v5 as published on DROPBOX has serious difficulties, inconsistencies incorrect terms and legal deficiencies I am not in agreement with that and request you to immediately reconsider that version and take into account the proposed amendment as sent you many time Should you take no action , we would have serious difficulties on 06 September to agree on any text regards Kavouss

1 0

consensus building
by WUKnoben Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

All, attached is draft version v5 of the consensus building document which I’ve also uploaded to the dropbox. In addition I send you the “ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3JHA” with all latest revisions and comments from your side (I hope I’m right). I have inserted my comments to yours as well as proposals on how to proceed. ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 is the result of this exercise: a.. it is explained that ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Laison Expert are not taking part in the decision making b.. “participants” replaced by “members” c.. quorum for decision making is defined as: A quorum is a majority of ICG members and must include at least one member of each ICG community (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en; 16 or more). This would cover Martins respective comment. If required something could be included in case of unintended absence. d.. re 4.a Personnel Decisions: in the second para. I suggest to lift the voting threshold to the level of the quorum as defined. Otherwise a voting with 9 affirmative votes may succeed which seems to be unbalanced. e.. “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community. f.. minority views – if any – should be expressed in the report (maybe as an annex) g.. chair / (and/or) vicechairs: I think the respective roles, proxies etc. should be added to the “chair responsibility” document. Then here in the consensus building document reference is only made to the chair. Please provide your comments with the “comment” function in order to make it easier to manage. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

4 15