- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Re: [Internal-cg] Posting of draft RFP
by Narelle Clark Sept. 11, 2014

Sept. 11, 2014

I understood this was going out for comment. Saying it is 'subject to change' is not the same as 'does your community consider this form of words will adequately capture the input you need to give?'. It's an RFC on the RFP. -- Narelle Clark Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> wrote: On 5.09.14 9:01 , Patrik Fältström wrote: > All, > > As you have noticed ICANN posted an announcement as a result of a request to have the draft RFP posted, for transparency reasons. I am working with ICANN on coming up with issues that makes this clear. On my own initiative I have just sent the following to ianatransition(a)icann.org where I saw the announcement: "Be aware that this text has not been formally agreed by the ICG yet. It is a very very stable draft, but changes may still occur before it is agreed. Daniel" _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

3 2

thoughts on where we are with the transition
by Jari Arkko Sept. 11, 2014

Sept. 11, 2014

FYI - thoughts from me on the transition. http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/09/iana-transition-update/ Jari

2 4

Re: [Internal-cg] RFP released?
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 11, 2014

Sept. 11, 2014

I noticed a few issues with the RFP, draft announcement, and timeline, so Mohamed and I are sorting through these with Alice: 1. The latest version of the RFP still had 31 December as the target date; it has been fixed in the attached and in Dropbox. 2. We’ve specified in the announcement that icg-forum(a)icann.org is the address to use for RFP clarification questions. 3. We didn’t have any language in the announcement about how we want the communities to submit proposals to us. I added a sentence to indicate that the proposals should be conveyed to the ICG mailing list by an ICG representative. 4. The timeline needs to go out as well and should be announced as part of the same announcement. also found an error in the v6 version Russ circulated, in the way the web forum was described. I’ve attached an updated version for publication, v7, and put it in Dropbox. 5. The timeline did not have a deadline for comments. I was not sure if this was intentional or not. I’ve inserted October 6 as a deadline. Given how late it is today, I think we should plan to publish the announcement, RFP, and timeline tomorrow (9 September). Updated draft announcement text is below and on Dropbox: — IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Issues Request for Transition Proposals and Suggested Transition Process Timeline The IANA Coordination Group (ICG) is pleased to announce the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP), for communities interested in and/or affected by the transition of IANA Stewardship from the United States NTIA to the Global Multistakeholder Internet community. The RFP is available on the ICG website at: < <https://www.icann.org/stewardship> please insert a direct link to the RFP> Should any community submitting a proposal require clarifications to the RFP, these should be submitted to the ICG on or before Wednesday, 24 September 2014. Submissions should be sent by email to icg-forum(a)icann.org before this date, and responses will be provided by the ICG by 20 October 2014. Clarification questions will be publicly archived at http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum. We expect communities to be able to begin work immediately on their proposals, in light of the aggressive timetable for this work. The communities should submit their proposals to the ICG before or on 15 January 2015. Proposals should be conveyed to the ICG by ICG members. The ICG has also released a suggested timeline for the transition process: <please insert a direct link to the timeline> While this timeline is aggressive, every attempt has been made to be flexible and allow all communities to participate effectively. The ICG is therefore providing this timeline for review and comment. Please provide comments by email to icg-forum(a)icann.org by 6 October 2014. They will be publicly archived at http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum. — On 9/8/14, 4:00 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > I did not see that the RFP was released today, did I miss something? > > Milton L Mueller > Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > > > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

6 8

ICG meeting Friday of LA ICANN meeting
by Patrik Fältström Sept. 11, 2014

Sept. 11, 2014

Here is the layout of the meeting for Friday of LA meeting. Patrik

4 4

NUMBER OF ICG MEMEBRS
by Kavouss Arasteh Sept. 10, 2014

Sept. 10, 2014

Dear Alissa May you kindly identify and8or confirm the exacrt number of ICG Members . I thought it is 30 but I saw a message referring to 32: Regards Kavouss

2 1

Announcements & Links
by Alice Jansen Sept. 10, 2014

Sept. 10, 2014

Dear ICG Members, See below links to announcements and documents: * Request for Proposal for Performance of Secretariat Function announcement - https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-09-09-en; * Request for Proposal for Performance of Secretariat Function - http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-icg-secretariat-09sep14-en.z…; * IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Issues Request for Transition Proposals and Suggested Transition Process Timeline announcement - https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-09-en; * IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en…; * Timeline - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-08sep14-en…. The ICG activities page has been updated to include the documents - see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-activities-2014-07-18-en. The ICG banner has also been updated on the ICANN homepage to include an outline of recent activities. Thanks, Best regards Alice

2 1

Direct consultation with communities
by Paul Wilson Sept. 10, 2014

Sept. 10, 2014

Adiel pointed out to me that we already have an open session in LA in addition to the ICG meeting on the Friday. So I withdraw the proposal to have a special open consultation session during the ICG meeting. I do suggest that a combined open consultation session is the best way to reach the broader community. I do not favour individual community meetings, and particularly not closed ones, for several of the reasons discussed in today’s meeting - transparency, balance/fairness, efficiency/cost etc. Other than this, the ICG is comprised of individuals all of whom are charged with providing a bridge between their communities and the group as a whole. Thanks, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38

6 5

Re: [Internal-cg] Open operational community processes
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 10, 2014

Sept. 10, 2014

Hopefully the responses from Narelle and Jari have cleared this up a bit as far as protocol parameters goes. I have some similar questions about the CWG process for names, however. I understand from <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Members+and+Observer s> that in the CWG there will be two different levels of participation: members and observers. Members will be appointed by ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC (the chartering organizations). Observers may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the CWG, or self-appointed. Observers will be allowed to participate and contribute input, but their views will not be taken into account in determining consensus. Question #1: How will the CWG process yield an outcome that has “broad support” if the consensus call only takes into account the appointed members from ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC? What if a bunch of other interested parties disagree with the conclusion of the members? (I’m happy to be told that ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC comprise the full universe of all possible interested parties and all I or some government rep or whoever else has to do is join one of those groups to have my view heard. Or something else. Just curious about how broad participation in determining consensus will work.) Question #2: Observers are required to provide a Statement of Interest. Observers who are not part of a chartering organization are asked to use the gNSO procedures for doing so <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>. That page appears to require a username and password in order to access the SOI form. But I can’t find any place on the site where I can obtain a username and password. Can someone send a pointer? Question #3: The existing Statement of Interest form for gNSO seems to require public disclosure of a lot of personal information. Why is that required to participate in the development of the transition proposal for names? Thanks, Alissa On 9/6/14, 5:02 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: >This is the same as my last message, but I changed the header (which I >should have done last time). If you want to respond to me, please respond >to this message not the other one. > >> -----Original Message----- >> Since then we've brought the draft RFP into our community, and the >> community is now busy working on an actual proposal. >> The first draft of that proposal is out. I think the IETF's questions >> about this topic are more in the proposal itself, and something we can >> work on ourselves, and at > >I have a bit of a problem with this, sorry to say. While I think it's >fine that people in IETF are developing ideas for proposals, the RFP >makes it clear that the process in each operational community is >supposed to be open and transparent, and include other interested and >affected parties. I think it would be a travesty if we release the RFP >and the IETF announces 5 days later that they are finished. > >Even if this is presented as a "Draft," any different ideas coming from >the outside would be dealing with what is in effect a sealed process, in >which changes would not be welcome or even seriously considered. The IETF >needs to convene a publicly announced, open process based on the RFP that >we are developing. > >--MM >_______________________________________________ >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 3

Consensus building discussion
by Alice Jansen Sept. 9, 2014

Sept. 9, 2014

Dear ICG Members, Attached you will the version which will be used for the discussion. Best regards Alice

9 20

FW: [ccTLDcommunity] IANA Stewardship Transition: Request for Proposals for IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
by Martin Boyle Sept. 8, 2014

Sept. 8, 2014

I've pointed out that this reference is wrong and pointed to the 6 September version. But my attention was drawn to the deadline: as I missed some of the discussions on Saturday, perhaps I also missed a change back to 31 December. The timescale discussion still refers to 15 January. -----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces(a)cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Gabriella Schittek Sent: 08 September 2014 11:15 To: cctldworld(a)icann.org; cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org; ccnso-members(a)icann.org Cc: ccnso-council(a)icann.org Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] IANA Stewardship Transition: Request for Proposals for IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Dear all, FYI:This is about the IANA Stewardship Transition: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en > ICANN News Alert > <http://www.icann.org/> > News Alert > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-05-en > > Revised: Request for Proposals (RFP) for IANA Stewardship Transition > Proposal Issued by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group > 5 September 2014 > > This announcement is to correct the omission from the 3 September > communication of the draft nature of the Request for Proposals (RFP) > for the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Issued by the IANA > Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. The IANA Stewardship > Coordination Group (ICG) issued a Draft RFP for the IANA stewardship > transition proposal with the intent of providing communities working > on proposals the substantive elements of the RFP as soon as possible. > The latest working draft of the RFP can be found here > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en…> [PDF, 95 KB] Kind regards, Gabi

2 1