- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

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

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

Feb. 17, 2015

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

7 8

Comment received on the ICG forum
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 16, 2015

Feb. 16, 2015

Hello All, Please find the link to the comment received on the icg-forum on 10 Feb below: - Review of proposals for completness [sic] - http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00031.html Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

ICANN52
by WUKnoben Feb. 15, 2015

Feb. 15, 2015

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

7 13

Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
by mnuduma Feb. 14, 2015

Feb. 14, 2015

+1 @ Kavouss. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Date: 14/02/2015 02:07 (GMT+01:00) To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org,ccwg-accountability1@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 Keith I strongly recommend that no action be taken by co chairs who in fact are the origin of this misunderstanding The situation is clear . ICG will receive input from CCWG indirectly through CWG , the latter will take into account output of Work stream 1 of CCWG No need any intervention of ch chairs at all Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 23:40, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> wrote: Thank you Kavouss. Since this has been a recurring discussion, perhaps our Co-Chairs could send a request for clarification to Dr. Crocker to ensure we're all on the same page. In my mind, it's really a question of formality...the CCWG is not required to submit anything to the ICG, but the ICG may certainly receive input from the CCWG and assess it accordingly. I have no objection to us doing so. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Keith No it does not Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by ICG in a direct or indirect manner. Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met. By the way you may be in the same camp of the person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you associate yourself is not correct Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> wrote: Hi Kavouss, I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups. Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks. Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG. That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun. We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG. I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks. Regards, Keith On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> wrote: On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: 'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place. My view: There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from". The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other. There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs. Because of that, coordination is needed. But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do. Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

statement Steve Crocker
by WUKnoben Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

Steve Crockers statement on behalf of the ICANN Board done at the ICANN Public Forum today: << LET ME GO TO THE STATEMENT RELATED TO THE PROPOSALS HERE. SO WE HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING -- REQUESTING CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW ICANN WILL HANDLE RECEIPT OF THE PROPOSAL FROM THE ICG AND THE WORK STREAM ONE 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 IN OUR OWN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG'S PROPOSAL. SO I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL. WE'VE TRIED TO LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE DISPARATE NUANCES OF WHAT OTHERWISE ARE ALL INTENDED TO AIM AT THE SAME TARGET. >> Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

3 4

IANA session at ICANN 52
by WUKnoben Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

This morning, I attended the IANA session as some few ICG members did. It was a very concise presentation given by IANA senior staff. I highly recommend the session and accompanying presentation be viewed http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 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

12 31

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