- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages
by Mohamed El Bashir March 6, 2015

March 6, 2015

Dear All, The Chairs had 2 meetings with ICANN's communications team in Los Angeles and Singapore, they offered to support ICG in planning and developingneed inforgraphics, animation videos and media messages . As ICG progressing in the proposal evaluations it might be useful to explain some of our important processes to public in clear visual presentation, if we decided to accept ICANN support in this, its communications team will develop those infographs based on ICG guidance, review and approval. the infograhs and other produced media can be published in ICG web site. Please advice if we can proceed on this approach and develop some infographs with ICANN support. If yes, what issues/topics you think we should focus on ( e.g proposals evaluation/assessment process, the time line, .....etc ). Kind Regards, Mohamed

7 6

Re: [Internal-cg] ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages
by Mohamed El Bashir March 5, 2015

March 5, 2015

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > Sorry, but I don’t see the need for this at all. > > > > I see it as a potential diversion from our substantive work and a > time-consuming move into PR. As another matter, we’ve just detached our > Secretariat from ICANN and now we get deeply enmeshed into their > communications team? > Its shouldn't consume ICG time as a small group or a volunteer(s) can work on it and present the final outcome to ICG. PR is not part of our new secretariat mandate. ICANN still provides ICG with support ( logistics, travel, ...etc ), not sure why PR could not be part of that as long the ICG determines the content of such out-reach messages and approve the end product. > > > We might need some kind of better public outreach when we have assembled > three finalized proposals and we are seeking public comment. Until then, I > do not understand the need. Martin mentioned “registries who are not > involved in the ICANN process.” It is a clearly defined part of this > process that it is the task of the operational communities, in this case > names, to involve all relevant groups in the development of the proposal. > It is not our job to do so. So perhaps ICANN PR can offer their services to > the CWG. > Agree, we will need outreach when we assemble the final proposal but we also need it through the evaluation process, better to plan/start early while we have less pressure now. > > > I am shaking my head in disbelief about this, really. Simple explanations > of the role of the ICG are not the primary problem the transition faces > right now. It is not even a secondary problem, or a tertiary one. Let’s be > realistic. The problem has to do with achieving consensus among a complex > set of interest groups around management of the names root. The idea that > we are going to advance that process with slick infographics about us > strikes me as seriously misguided, almost narcissistic. > I know and others as well clearly the challenges ahead of us as ICG, the current names debate and challenges is clear indication of task complexity in the final proposal assembly. That's being said, its our role to ensure that our processes and procedures are transparent and clear to the wider internet community, this is the objective Not resolving ICG issues complexity by a slick infograph !! > > > > --MM > > > > *From:* internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mohamed El Bashir > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 4, 2015 3:15 PM > *To:* ICANN Internal > *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages > > > > Dear All, > > The Chairs had 2 meetings with ICANN's communications team in Los Angeles > and Singapore, they offered to support ICG in planning and developingneed > inforgraphics, animation videos and media messages . > > As ICG progressing in the proposal evaluations it might be useful to > explain some of our important processes to public in clear visual > presentation, if we decided to accept ICANN support in this, its > communications team will develop those infographs based on ICG guidance, > review and approval. the infograhs and other produced media can be > published in ICG web site. > > Please advice if we can proceed on this approach and develop some > infographs with ICANN support. > > If yes, what issues/topics you think we should focus on ( e.g proposals > evaluation/assessment process, the time line, .....etc ). > > Kind Regards, > > Mohamed >

4 3

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Next steps?
by Alissa Cooper March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

This is relevant to some of the questions Wolf-Ulrich has raised about implementation, so I’m forwarding it. Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Next steps? > Date: January 26, 2015 at 6:12:27 PM PST > To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Hello Seun and colleagues on the IANAXFER list, > > > > Thank you once again Seun for your question about the next steps. > I think this is a useful question for others in the community as well. > > As you are aware, our proposal to the ICG describes high level > principles about the Review Committee and the SLA including "IANA > Service Level Agreement Principles" in the proposal, so RIRs will > consider implementation based on this guidance. > > Our role as the CRISP team is to provide guidance to the RIRs in > the implementation of the proposal, and the details and process of > implementation of the proposal is the responsibility of the RIRs. The > charter of the review committee and actual contract text are part of > implementation of the proposal which is the responsibility of the RIRs. > > Having said this, the CRISP Team believes it is important for the > community to have clear visibility that RIRs acknowledges this proposal > which references actions by them. > > Therefore, after Step2 of the ICG's latest timeline, when the proposals > by all three operational communities are consolidated by the ICG, the > CRISP Team plans to formally inform the executives of the RIRs about the > proposal submitted to the ICG which references actions by the RIRs. > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en… > > We expect that there will be formal acknowledgement from the five RIRs > about this, so it is clear to the community that the RIRs will take the > appropriate steps to implement the proposal from the Number Resources > community. We trust each RIR will consult with their respective > communities as needed in preparing the SLA, and the Review Committee is > to be established in an open and bottom-up manner, as we have described > in the proposal. > > I hope this clarifies the role of the CRISP team and RIRs in future steps. > > > > Regards, > Izumi Okutani > The CRISP Team > > On 2015/01/22 23:45, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> Great thanks for the first level clarification Izumi. >> >> Cheers! >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> wrote: >> >>> Hello Seun, >>> >>> >>> Just from what I can answer for now, >>> >>>>> - SLA requirements >>> >>> "IANA Service Level Agreement Principles" are described in Section >>> III.A.3 of our proposal, as you are probably aware. This lists >>> principles and elements to be included in the SLA. >>> >>> Both of the processes listed below will be lead by the RIRs and not the >>> CRISP Team. I trust the RIRs will start the process, so that we have >>> these them ready before the transition. >>> >>>>> - Charter of review committee >>>>> - Contract actual text >>> >>> I need to double check if there is anything more we can say at this >>> stage as the CRISP Team - Thanks for your question and patience! >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Izumi >>> >>> On 2015/01/22 13:29, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>> Hello Izumi, >>>> >>>> You may have missed this mail, could you/or any crisp team kindly provide >>>> update? >>>> >>>> Just to clarify (in line of recent development), not all the 3 items are >>>> expected to be developed by this WG but will be good to know when those >>>> processes will start. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>> On 21 Jan 2015 09:37, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Izumi, CRISP team >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again to you and the entire team. I just want to ask about what >>> the >>>>> next line of action will be? i.e are we to wait until the ICG release >>> their >>>>> final proposal? or while we wait on ICG, we also start the drafting >>> process >>>>> for the following: >>>>> >>>>> - Charter of review committee >>>>> - SLA requirements >>>>> - Contract actual text >>>>> >>>>> Thanks as i look forward to your response >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >>>>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: >>> +2348035233535**alt >>>>> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng >>>>> <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* >>>>> >>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

4 4

Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference
by Alissa Cooper March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment. (1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week) (2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>. (3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21) (4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html> Thanks, Alissa

7 12

Dates for meeting in Buenos Aires
by Patrik Fältström March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

All, I just received information that we do have room and interpreters etc for a meeting Thursday-Friday before the ICANN meeting, i.e. June 18-19. I propose we have meetings as follows: June 18: 09:00 - 18:00 June 19: 09:00 - 18:00 Patrik

12 19

Comment received on the icg-forum
by Jennifer Chung March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Hello All, Please find the link to the comment received on the icg-forum on 27 Feb below: - A holistic proposal: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00032.html Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

Minutes of the 25 February 2015 teleconference
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 28, 2015

Feb. 28, 2015

Hello All, The minutes of the 25 February 2015 teleconference (ICG Call #12) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/pr24n5x Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, 6-7 February 2015
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 28, 2015

Feb. 28, 2015

Hello All, The minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting (6-7 February 2015) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z5ytdn7szgpvnvd/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- february-2015.docx?dl=0 and https://www.dropbox.com/s/b2ailjn3iq446up/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day2-7- february-2015.docx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer

3 4

Timeline v8
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 28, 2015

Feb. 28, 2015

I took an action on the Feb 25 call to draft an update to our current timeline document to reflect our discussions about how we will proceed. Since I’m going on leave, I offer the text in the attached for discussion without first coordinating it with the co-chairs and Manal, all of whom should feel free to comment on it just as others should. The updated file is also in dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1c1efipctyvchu/TimelineDiscussion-v8.docx?dl=0 Here is the text of the note that I added to the document, which tries to reflect the discussion about this on the mailing list and on the call: March 2014 Update: The timeline below was created around the assumption that the ICG would receive proposals from each of the three operational communities in January 2015. Given that the names community proposal will take more time, the ICG will proceed with as many of the steps described below as possible for the proposals received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities while the names community concludes its work. This will include ICG members informally seeking provisional comments from their respective communities about the combined draft proposal containing the protocol parameters and numbers proposals. ICG members expect to continue to work together with the names community to help ensure that compatibility between the three proposals can be achieved most efficiently. The ICG will revisit the timeline below in the future as the proposal development work progresses. Best, Alissa

3 2

Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Patrik, Mohamed, the secretariat and I have worked on an edited version of the proposal finalization process and a new timeline spreadsheet that corresponds to the edits (attached and in Dropbox at https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zmvchgfl7fi2al/proposal-finalization-process-v6-… and https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0) In the proposal finalization process: - The sub-steps are now numbered. We added proposed time frames to each of the numbered sub-steps. In the F2F meeting we heard support for maintaining the original time frames, so we did not modify them here. Note, however, that in Step 4 this is basically impossible — we allotted ourselves 4 weeks to obtain public comments, analyze them, send issues to the communities, and produce the final proposal! We put a note in about that being unrealistic. - In steps 1 and 2, we have reversed the order of the “if” clauses concerning whether or not operational community work is needed. It is much easier to depict the steps graphically if the potential OC work is listed first and then the milestone is at the end. We didn’t change any of the substance, just the order in which the words appear. - For steps that are milestones, they say “milestone” rather than listing a time span. In the timeline spreadsheet: - We depicted the original timeline/time spans, as reflected in the edited proposal finalization process, in two ways — first on two separate sheets, and then on one combined sheet. Not sure which one is easier for people to follow so we included both. - I counted up the weeks in our original plan and it was about 28 weeks, or 6.5 months, from Jan 15 to Jul 31. But because the weeks-to-months mapping is not exact (e.g., some months have more than 4 weeks, partial weeks, etc.), if we had mapped that plan out generically week-by-week in the spreadsheet, it would have totaled 26 weeks (4 weeks/month, at 6.5 months, gives 26 weeks). The "Original Timeline with CWG Dependency" tabs lists 31 weeks, which has the original 26 weeks plus the 5 additional weeks built into Step 4 in the proposal finalization process. So this is closer to 8 months rather than the 6 number we were discussing on Saturday, if we stick closely to the proposal finalization process and assume that we will need the operational community work periods, which we may or may not. - We’ve included an alternative timeline as well, called Optimized, to respond to what people were saying in the room about optimizing and parallelizing our work. There is a note on the spreadsheet itself that explains the optimizations. We would need to decide as a group about whether we want to go down the "Original with CWG Dependency" path or the Optimized path. All of the steps are still there and they use the previously defined time frames, but they occur more in parallel. Please send your feedback and opinions about the documents. Thanks, Alissa

12 30

ICG face-to-face meeting #5 - travel support
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Dear ICG Members, As communicated by Patrik, your ICG face-to-face meeting #5 will be held in Buenos Aires on Thursday 18 - Friday 19 June 2015. In accordance with <https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20 > ICANN's travel support guidelines <https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20 > and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting. As needed, ICANN may also offer support to ICG members to accommodate their participation in other relevant events taking place during the ICANN 53 <http://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/> week. Please note that supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (17-26 June) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. We invite you to flag any travel support requests you may have using admin(a)icgsec.asia <mailto:admin@icgsec.asia> by Friday 13 March 2015. Thanks, Best regards, Jennifer

1 0

Conclusion of Step 2 assessment for IETF+RIR proposals
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

I took an action on our Feb 25 call to confirm on the mailing list whether we have concluded our Step 2 assessment of the protocol parameters and numbers proposals. As a reminder, 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? A number of people on the call (Milton, Lynn, Patrik, Daniel, Joe) expressed their satisfaction that, together, the protocol parameters and numbers proposals we have received meet the above criteria and that we can conclude our Step 2 assessment for these two proposals. If others have thoughts to share on this topic, whether in support of concluding the Step 2 assessment of these proposals or otherwise, please send them to the list. Note that of course we will revisit this Step 2 assessment process for all three proposals together after we receive a names proposal. Thanks, Alissa

2 1

REMINDER: ICG Teleconferences Mar 2015 - Doodle Poll to act on
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Hello All, A friendly reminder to those who have not selected their preferences to please fill out the doodle poll to determine the exact times for the for the upcoming ICG teleconferences in March 2015. Doodle poll: http://doodle.com/z8tr4bn6cnw3chb3 - Weds Mar 11 at around 12:00 UTC - Weds Mar 25 at around 20:00 UTC Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

Attendance Roll Call for ICG Call #12
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

Hello All, As requested by Alissa, below is the roll call for ICG Call #12. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies. ICG Participants: Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Alan Barrett (NRO) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Michael Niebel (GAC) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) James Bladel (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Apologies: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Expert) Manal Ismail (GAC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Kuo-wei Wu (Board Liaison) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Russ Housley (IAB) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

Action items from ICG Call #12, 25 February 2015
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

Hello All, Please find a list of action items from ICG Call #12 below: 1. Cooper and ICG chairs to coordinate with Ismail to draft explanatory text to be published with the 10 September 2014 published timeline (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-graphic-10 sep14-en.xlsx) as an update and send to the internal-cg mailing list for ICG's review. 2. ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal. 3. Arkko to provide further information (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF's current overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA interaction. 4. Cooper to confirm with ICG members on the internal-cg mailing list that the ICG has completed Step 2 of the assessment process (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali zation-24dec14-en.pdf) for the protocol parameters and numbers proposals. Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

Finalizing the comments proposal
by joseph alhadeff Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

Kavouss: By way of clarification, I think you are highlighting a confusion in the drafting which we need to clarify. If ICG poses a question to a community related to a proposal, whether originated by us or one that we receive which we believe needs to be addressed , it must be answered - there is no latitude in that. The more voluntary language was meant only to address an individual question which has come to us form an individual or group outside of the ICG which we don't require an answer to. While we suggest that the community endeavor to address those, as appropriate, we do not require that those questions be answered in an individualized manner. Clearly the current draft, is resulting in confusion and needs to be clarified. Joe

2 1

Action item from ICG F2F
by Jari Arkko Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

I had an action item from Singapore: > 2. Arkko to do write up of jurisdiction and NTIA oversight in the Protocol parameters operational community. The description for the action item is a bit brief, but my understanding at the meeting was that we had two kinds of questions for the IETF proposal, the first being ones that the community needs to be asked about. We send one such question to the IETF/RIR community. But the second type was requests for further information that can be provided by us or by reference to other, existing materials. These are typically for clarification. The way that I understood my task was that I was expected to list these questions and provide a written answer, having provided brief answers earlier in the discussion and in the meeting. However, this overlaps with the list that we already got from Jennifer. The main items on my list were: 1. What is the situation with enhancements to the agreements between IETF and ICANN? 2. Can you explain what jurisdiction applies for the IETF’s arrangements with regards to IANA and ICANN? 3. Can you explain what oversight, if any, NTIA currently has over the protocol parameters? I believe the latter two questions were already in Jennifer’s table, and I don’t think we need to do more. Does anyone think we need to do more? I can write some additional text, but if it is needed please point out what you would like to see in that text. In any case, the first question is not in Jennifer’s list, and I would suggest adding it to the table: 1. What is the situation with enhancements to the agreements between IETF and ICANN? Answer: The IETF and ICANN update the SLA on a yearly basis. These updates typically specify things that we have together identified as being useful additional or changed procedures. For instance, in the previous SLA in early 2014, a clause was added for performing a 3rd party audit that policies are correctly being followed when performing the IANA function. Most recent SLA can be found on the IETF web site (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-E…) Now in 2015 the IETF and ICANN are again updating the SLA and are currently in the process of negotiations. The responsible party on the IETF side is the IAOC. IAOC’s roles and structure is defined in RFC 4071 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4071.txt) The parties will provide updates when there is something to report. The IETF general procedure is to keep the SLA as up to date as the current view of IETF requirements is, addressing needs that have come up during the ongoing SLA period.

1 0

Reminder - Senate Hearings Wednesday
by James M. Bladel Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

ICG Colleagues: Just in case folks weren't already aware, the Senate Commerce Committee will hold hearings tomorrow on the IANA Transition. Scheduled to provide testimony are Fadi Chehade (ICANN), Larry Strickling (NTIA), and Amb. David Gross. The session will begin at 10:00EST (7:00PST - 15:00UTC) and a video stream should be available here (short link): http://x.co/7pGUJ Thanks- J. ----- James Bladel GoDaddy

1 0

Regrets - will miss call
by Elise Gerich Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

The departure of my flight has been delayed and now I will be on a plane at the time of our phone call. My apology as I will miss the call. Regards, -- Elise

2 1

ICG call
by WUKnoben Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

Colleagues, prior to the ICG call tomorrow where timeline as well as step2 assessment shall be discussed I’d like to draw your attention to ongoing CWG discussion re the level of implementation detail needed to be covered by the proposals (see attached). I deem the ICG owes to the 3 communities to provide respective guideline as the NTIA was raising the implementation question during the Singapore meeting. There may be a great variation in implementation details. And the various detail options shall directly impact the time needed to elaborate – hence our timeline. I’d like to encourage for the discussion tomorrow in order to come up with guidlines applicable for all the communities. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:59 PM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: John Poole ; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other, but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John. Because it's not our opinion that matters. I'll leave it to our chairs to determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our proposal. For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)? Or is a fully drafted contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)? Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or is it something in between? For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a mention that there will be one? I don't want to make more work for everybody (including me). And I'd rather have less work than more, and get this done faster rather than slower. So, I would actually prefer to be wrong. But let's find out from the ICG what they would consider to be a complete proposal. That's what matters. They in turn can consult Larry Strickling if they feel there's any ambiguity in their own minds. Then we can go forward with certainty. I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail, and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that, there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can begin. Is that really what's intended? Greg

6 6

Re: [Internal-cg] Question from the ICG
by Jari Arkko Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Dear Alissa and the ICG, We refer to the question that the ICG asked the IETF community on 9 Feb 2015 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01610.html > 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? We do not observe incompatibilities between the proposals from the numbers and protocol parameters communities. The numbers community expresses a preference to transfer the trademark and domain, while the IETF proposal does not oppose such transfer. This is not an incompatibility, it is something that can be satisfied by implementation of both number and protocol parameters community’s proposals, as already specified. To confirm this, and to determine whether the transfer of the trademark and domain would be acceptable, we consulted the community. It is the opinion of the IANAPLAN working group that they would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the trademark and domain on behalf of the Internet community. For details, see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01659.html The IETF Trust also looked at this issue. The trustees decided that the IETF Trust would be willing to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA function, including the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name. For details, see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01664.html In short, we find no incompatibility between the proposals and no need to modify the protocol parameters proposal. Best Regards, Jari Arkko and Russ Housley on behalf of the IETF community and the IETF Trust

3 3

Numbers community response to question from the ICG
by Alan Barrett Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

The numbers community has made the following response to the question asked by the ICG: ----- Forwarded message from Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> ----- Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 08:33:57 +0900 From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG Dear Alissa and the ICG, We refer to the question that the ICG asked the numbers community on 9 Feb 2015 <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-February/000397.html>: > 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?> We do not observe incompatibilities between the proposals from the numbers and protocol parameters communities, for reasons given below. * It is expectations of the numbers community that the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain are available for the use of IANA Numbering Services in the future, even if the IANA Numbering Services Operator is changed from ICANN to some other operator, or if different communities choose different IANA operators in the future. * In order to meet that expectation, it is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the mark and the name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator. * The numbers community considers the IETF Trust as an acceptable option, provided this is supported by the IETF community, and the IETF Trust is willing to accept it. This is not the only option, and the numbers community is open to consider other solutions which work for other affected parties. This reflects the discussions in the number resources community on this <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list archived at: Question from the ICG https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-February/subject.html To summarize: The numbers proposal does not set a "MUST" condition to transfer the mark and domain to the IETF Trust or to any other specific entity, and the IETF proposal does not say it will oppose transfer of the mark and domain to the IETF Trust, so we do not observe any incompatibilities. From discussions on the IETF ianaplan group, we observe subsequent decisions by the IETF ianaplan group and the IETF further support the position that there is no conflict. Best Regards, Izumi Okutani on behalf of the CRISP Team _______________________________________________ ianaxfer mailing list ianaxfer(a)nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer ----- End forwarded message -----

2 1

Singapore questions on the numbers community proposal
by Paul Wilson Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Dear all, In Singapore I heard the following questions about the numbers proposal, both from Mr Arasteh. I have only just passed these on the the CRISP team for their response, so I expect we won’t hear back before the meeting on Wednesday. Thanks, Paul. > II.B.2. If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify which ones are affected and explain in what way. > > A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA Numbering Services, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA Functions Operator, would have no significant impact on the continuity of IANA Numbering Services currently provided by ICANN. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the current system > > ICANN has historically provided IANA Numbering Services via the IANA Number Registries under the terms of the NTIA IANA Functions contract, and therefore IANA Numbering Services for the RIRs are currently subject to change in accordance with that agreement. Question: What specifically is the “element of oversight” which is referred to in this section, and how is it to be replaced under this proposal? > III.A. The elements of this proposal > > • ICANN to continue as the IANA Functions Operator for the IANA Numbering Services, hereinafter referred to as the IANA Numbering Services Operator, via a contract with the RIRs; > • IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains with the community; > • Service Level Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services Operator; and > • Establishment of a Review Committee, with representatives from each RIR, to advise the NRO EC on the review of the IANA functions operator’s performance and meeting of identified service levels. > > This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the number community, the protocol parameter community, and the name community) will have independent arrangements with the IANA Functions Operator related to maintenance of the specific registries for which they are responsible. At the same time, the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the importance of communication and coordination between these communities to ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via processes distinct from this stewardship transition process. Question: Given the stated need for “communication and coordination” between the communities, how is this to be achieved under this proposal? ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100

2 2

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