- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Sunday Evening IANA Transition & Accountability Session
by Narelle Clark Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

I saw this one when I went through the online ICANN schedule on Wed night. So will be there. Narelle -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: Welcome to ICANN meeting scheduling dysfunction! This is a very irritating but unfortunately routine aspect of ICANN meetings. Often the presenters are not balanced as well. From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 7:50 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Sunday Evening IANA Transition & Accountability Session All, Without any previous communication I just got this in my mailbox. Part from being a complete surprise, it has also created quite some scheduling conflicts at ICANN. Because of this, I am at the moment awaiting further information "how this was created". Regardless, it seems there will be an "informational session on IANA Transition and Accountability" where I am requested to be part of a Q&A. Patrik P.S. Bullet / speaking points will be send shortly Begin forwarded message: From: Jim Trengrove <jim.trengrove(a)icann.org<mailto:jim.trengrove@icann.org>> To: Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se<mailto:paf@frobbit.se>>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>>, "izumi(a)nic.ad.jp<mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp>" <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp<mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, "ajs(a)crankycanuck.ca<mailto:ajs@crankycanuck.ca>" <ajs(a)crankycanuck.ca<mailto:ajs@crankycanuck.ca>>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Cc: "bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com<mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com>" <bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com<mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com>>, Ira Magaziner <ira(a)sjsadvisors.com<mailto:ira@sjsadvisors.com>>, Jan Aart Scholte <jan.scholte(a)globalstudies.gu.se<mailto:jan.scholte@globalstudies.gu.se>>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org<mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org<mailto:duncan.burns@icann.org>> Subject: Sunday Evening IANA Transition & Accountability Session Date: 7 februari 2015 22:51:19 GMT+8 Good evening Chairs and to those of you who have graciously agreed to step in for one - Attached is the final show flow for the Sunday evening session. Please review and let me know if you have any questions. While the Chairs have not been asked to make presentations, please feel free to suggest an issue or question you would like Bertrand, our moderator, to ask. We have set aside a good 45 minutes for Q&A but our hope is the session will be more of a free flowing discussion. While we planned to have only one Chair from each of the active groups to sit on the panel, there may be extra space, as well as a standup mic on the floor to encourage participation. Bertrand will be in the room at 1630 to begin a brief rehearsal and encourages as many of you who can to arrive early as well. Thanks again for taking the time out of your already busy schedules to do this. I think this will be a great kickoff to all of the important discussions to follow this week. Best Jim Trengrove Senior Director of Communications Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers +1 202 297 8950

1 0

Fwd: Sunday Evening IANA Transition & Accountability Session
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

All, Without any previous communication I just got this in my mailbox. Part from being a complete surprise, it has also created quite some scheduling conflicts at ICANN. Because of this, I am at the moment awaiting further information "how this was created". Regardless, it seems there will be an "informational session on IANA Transition and Accountability" where I am requested to be part of a Q&A. Patrik P.S. Bullet / speaking points will be send shortly > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Jim Trengrove <jim.trengrove(a)icann.org> > To: Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk>, "izumi(a)nic.ad.jp" <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, "ajs(a)crankycanuck.ca" <ajs(a)crankycanuck.ca>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> > Cc: "bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com" <bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com>, Ira Magaziner <ira(a)sjsadvisors.com>, Jan Aart Scholte <jan.scholte(a)globalstudies.gu.se>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org> > Subject: Sunday Evening IANA Transition & Accountability Session > Date: 7 februari 2015 22:51:19 GMT+8 > > Good evening Chairs and to those of you who have graciously agreed to step in for one - > > Attached is the final show flow for the Sunday evening session. Please review and let me know if you have any questions. > > While the Chairs have not been asked to make presentations, please feel free to suggest an issue or question you would like Bertrand, our moderator, to ask. > > We have set aside a good 45 minutes for Q&A but our hope is the session will be more of a free flowing discussion. > > While we planned to have only one Chair from each of the active groups to sit on the panel, there may be extra space, as well as a standup mic on the floor to encourage participation. > > Bertrand will be in the room at 1630 to begin a brief rehearsal and encourages as many of you who can to arrive early as well. > > Thanks again for taking the time out of your already busy schedules to do this. I think this will be a great kickoff to all of the important discussions to follow this week. > > Best > > Jim Trengrove > Senior Director of Communications > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > +1 202 297 8950 >

3 3

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

Feb. 8, 2015

All, I have got some questions offlist regarding the session. I am sorry for not keeping people more updated. The plan for the session has not changed from the original that got some slight feedback. 1. I will open the session, and "host it", not give ANY information from ICG, just logistics for the session 2. We will have the operational communities come to the stage in the order we received the proposals 2.1. Protocol Parameters, Marc Blanchet 2.2. Numbers, Izumi Okutani 2.3. Names, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr 3. I welcome Matthew Shears as moderator for the Q&A 4. Q&A with representatives from OC and ICG on stage - Patrik & Mohamed - Marc - Izumi & Alan Barrett - Jonathan & Lise Each one of 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 get MAXIMUM of 40 minutes, but might very well be shorter in which time we add time to 4. ICG members are recommended to be "close" to one of the two microphones to answer questions and "speak" in a more informal way and participate in the discussion in a different way than me and Mohamed that speak on behalf of what we believe the consensus or status is from ICG as a whole. Patrik

2 1

Interaction with GNSO today
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

Some weeks ago, Mohamed, Patrik, and I received a request to join a GNSO session today (12:00-12:30pm in Sophia) and provide an update from the ICG. For various reasons the session was not confirmed until today, but looking at our schedules it appears that at least one of us will be able to participate and possibly all three. Just wanted the ICG to know.

2 1

Interaction with the GNSO during Singapore weekend working session 8 February 2015
by Mohamed El Bashir Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

Dear ICG Colleagues, GNSO has requested ICG chairs to provide them an ICG update on the IANA Stweardship Transition which is scheduled today from 12:00 to 12:30 today. Myself and Patrick will participate beside GNSO ICG members ( Keith, James, Wolf-Ulrich, Milton, … ) please join us in this ICG update session. We will give an update which is based/aligned with our yesterday discussions and talking points discussed for our Monday session. Kind Regards, Mohamed

1 0

Proposed question for the protocols OC
by Milton L Mueller Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

This idea was worked out during the informal session yesterday. I think it had support among everyone there, so here is an attempt to provide specific wording for the transmission of the question: "The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was necessary as part of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says "It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to [certain expectations related to iana.org and the iana tm] as part of the transition." If this formal request was required by the other communities would the IETF be willing to make its proposal compatible with that request?" Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

8 13

Suggested speaking points
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

> Does the ICG think that there is a realistic chance to reach the original target date ? Our plans are currently unchaged. Expect result 6 months after we receive the response from the CWG. Once the ICG receives the CWG proposal, we will look for any opportunities to accelerate our work while ensuring a predictable process and the necessary public consultations. > Has the ICG revised its timeline ? When will this be the case ? Will there be more clarity by the end of the ICANN week ? ICG is reviewing the timeline, and also communicate with the operational communities, including CWG Names. Whether there will be more clarity by the end of the ICANN week in Singapore is unclear, but there is a possibility there will be. > What is the new target date ? Earlier estimates said ICG need 6 months in addition to what time the communities require, but that was dependent on all proposals arriving at the same time. The impact on getting the proposals at different points in time has not been evaluated yet. > Has the ICG approached the CWG in order to explore whether the CWG could compress its timeline ? Why not ? We are communicating with the CWG, but the time they need is to be calculated by them. If the community require more time, the community should use that time, as Secretary Strickling stated <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-st…> Patrik

2 1

Two possible responses to two possible questions
by Milton L Mueller Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

DOES THE ICG THINK THAT THERE IS A REALISTIC CHANCE TO REACH THE original TARGET DATE? Yes, for the numbers and protocol parameters proposals, this is a realistic possibility HAS THE ICG REVISED ITS TIMELINE? The need of the names CWG for additional time means that the ICG cannot hit its original target for all three proposals, but aside from that our plans are unchanged. Expect result 6 months after we receive the response from the CWG. Once the ICG receives the CWG proposal, we will look for any opportunities to accelerate our work while ensuring a predictable process and the necessary public consultations. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

1 0

Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 > Date: February 6, 2015 at 2:34:58 AM PST > To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > > Dear all, > Please share this widely with your SO/Acs, we want to get as much distribution on the Discussion Document as possible. > > To view the original message, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en. > > CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 > The CWG-Stewardship has created a Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore. The Discussion Document attempts to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the group during its deliberations in Singapore. > > In engaging with the community, such as the group did during the Webinars on 3 February, the CWG-Stewardship hopes to leave the ICANN 52 in a significantly improved position in its mission develop a transition proposal. > > The CWG-Stewardship looks forward to engaging with the community on the questions raised in the Discussion Document, particularly during the CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session on Thursday, 12 February at 10:30 – 11:45 SGT local time. > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

3 6

Revised ICG timeline
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

Hi all, I’ve taken a first stab at revising the ICG timeline (attached and in Dropbox at <https://www.dropbox.com/s/99nrslw6czblvio/TimelineGraphic-v6.xlsx?dl=0>). Inspired by the timetable we received from the CWG <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-January/002784.html>, I’ve called it “Best Case Timeline.” The portion showing CWG proposal development is aligned with what we received from the CWG, and the steps after that are contingent upon when we received the names proposal from them. Our current timeline graphic is available at <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-graphic-10…>. Couple of overall comments: (1) The timeline envisions that the bulk of our ICG time between now and June will be spent getting the IETF and RIR proposal components as final as possible in advance of our receipt of the names proposal from the CWG. (2) All of the engagement of the operational communities in reaction to our Step I and Step II assessment processes are listed with the “if necessary” caveat. We need to build in time in case we have questions we need to send back to the communities, and we need to give them time to address those questions, but it’s also possible that we will not have questions and therefore the built-in time will not be necessary. (3) In our proposal assembly and finalization process, we envisioned running two public comment periods after having assembled a complete proposal. This timeline suggests running a single public comment process instead. Given that the CWG will have run multiple public comment periods on the names piece of the proposal, and the IETF and RIR proposal components will have been quite stable and thoroughly vetted for many months by the time we can run a public comment process on the complete proposal, I think a single public comment process should be sufficient. This will also allow us to complete our work within two ICANN meeting cycles after our receipt of the names proposal. (4) I’ve tried to take into account the timing of future ICANN meetings as well as the impact of holiday periods in putting this together. (5) The timeline envisions us transmitting the final proposal to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA in March 2016. This assumes that the current NTIA contract will have been sufficiently extended beyond September 2015. If it does not get extended, of course we will have to re-evaluate not just the timeline but our work on the transition more broadly at that time. It would be great to discussion about this going on the mailing list this week. I think we should reserve 90 minutes to discuss at our face-to-face meeting, with another 45 minutes or so of parking lot time in case we want to come back to it after the initial discussion. Thanks, Alissa

3 5

Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]
by Joseph Alhadeff Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

I support this approach as well. Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Lynn St.Amour [Lynn(a)lstamour.org] Received: Saturday, 07 Feb 2015, 7:50AM To: Manal Ismail [manal(a)tra.gov.eg] CC: ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints] Manal, first, GREAT job as usual! And, both you and Daniel have laid this out quite clearly. Thank you both. I support many of Daniel's points (just as you did), in fact, all but one. I do have concerns about "No acknowledgements. No forwarding" for the reasons you state. It does not feel responsive enough. I would support a path that acknowledged and forwarded any comments the ICG forum received to the appropriate OC - with a short note re our expectations (captured largely in your earlier note, and worded in a way that did not trigger our common fears of incorrect impressions). It could also reaffirm the role of the OC's and the ICG - this will also be instructional for anyone else contemplating a note to the ICG. I also see this more as an Operating Practice than a Procedure per se. If we go this way, I am happy to work with Manal (and others) on text. Best all, Lynn On Feb 5, 2015, at 2:31 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> wrote: > Comments, short ones :), inline below .. > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:52 AM > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: ICG > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling > process complaints] > > On 2.02.15 23:00 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Jean-Jacques, >> >> ... And I think it would be great to continue this discussion on the >> mailing list so that it need not occupy much time during the F2F > meeting. ... > > > After the discussion so far, my proposal remains as is: > > avoid any impression that we run a complaints procedure or an appeals > process. > [MI]: Agree .. > > No procedure. > [MI]: Agree .. We don't necessarily need a procedure, per se, but at > least we need common agreement on how to proceed .. > > No acknowledgements. No forwarding. > [MI]: Let me try to go down this path, then what? Do nothing? Then why > did we agree to receive comments directly from the community at the > first place? Do something else? Fair enough, what is it? > > Agree on posing specific questions using our normal process. > [MI]: I fully agree .. Each ICG member can pose questions to the > relevant OC .. and I support Alissa's proposal, to gather all ICG > questions and compile one list (union of all) for each relevant OC .. > ICG questions and public comments are different and not mutually > exclusive processes, as ICG questions may or may not have to with public > comments .. > > It appears to me that we should address this first. It makes no sense > going into details about a specific procedure before we definitely agree > to have one. > [MI]: Definitely .. I fully agree .. > > [MI]: I think, by now, both our views are clear :) .. Let's hear other > colleagues then try to reach an ICG consensus view and a way forward > tomorrow at the meeting .. > > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

SSAC 067, 068 & 069 Now in Dropbox
by Russ Mundy Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

Several folks have said that they would like to have the three SSAC publications in our joint Dropbox so I have placed copies of these documents from the SSAC publications web site <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/documents-2012-02-25-en> along with a ReadMe file. The new folder is named: SSAC-Documents Russ

2 1

CRISP presentation from today's meeting 6 Feb 2015
by Paul Wilson Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

Should be accessible on dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4io2o9ifbyu15f7/ICG%20CRISP%20update%2006022015%2… ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100

1 0

Links to SSAC Documents
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

SAC-067 in English: <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf> SAC-068 in English: <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-068-en.pdf> Translations of those will be added shortly, and I (and/or Russ) will let you know when they arrive. Patrik

2 2

IETF assessment
by Milton L Mueller Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

I have filled out most of the assessment form for the IETF / protocols response to our RFP. I've been waiting to finish it for the IANAPLAN WG to respond to the process challenges, trying to follow the list Unfortunately there is no clear response yet, the list is debating it. So I will wait a bit longer and turn in my draft assessment some time late tonight or tomorrow Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

6 18

Review of Protocol Parameters and Numbers Proposals for completeness
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

Hi, I have spent some time looking at the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals in parallel with the IANA Contract and specifically the ICANN Response to the RFP. The goal was to try to identify gaps or overlaps that the proposals did not take into account. Specifically, I looked at two areas: - The registries related to IP addresses and AS numbers - The IANA.ORG domain name I did add the summary of my review in my assessment of the Numbers Proposal where I did start with Wulf Ulrich excellent work (and that is why you see much text in my assessment that is exactly the same words as in his assessment). My assessment is in the dropbox and also attached to this email. Patrik

3 4

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process "
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process " > Date: February 4, 2015 at 11:54:59 AM PST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear all, > > > This is the CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR > proposal development process ", which is another post to icg-forum. > > Again, I welcome your comments and feedback about our reponse which is > likely to be a reference to the ICG. > > Explicit expressing support would be extremely helpful as well. > > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR > proposal development process " > Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:43:25 +0900 > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: icg-forum(a)icann.org > CC: crisp(a)nro.net <crisp(a)nro.net> > > Dear ICG members, > > > On 20 January 2015 Richard Hill wrote to the icg-forum list with a > number of concerns about the CRISP team process. > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00020.html > > The concerns expressed by Mr Hill were considered in depth during the > CRISP team proposal development process and had been discussed on the > ianaxfer mailing list with Mr Hill as well as other community members. > > The positions taken by the CRISP team was based on the consensus > position of the community. > > > Richard Hill wrote: > >> Certain legal questions were raised in discussions on the CRISP > mailing list >> (NRO IANAXFER), in particular regarding jurisdiction and dispute > resolution. >> The CRISP team apparently did not include anybody who had appropriate > legal >> expertise and it chose not to request outside legal expertise, see: >> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html > > Mr Hill’s objections to the position adopted by the CRISP team were well > documented in his emails to the ianaxfer mailing list, and were > discussed at length on the CRISP teleconferences (notes and audio > archives of these calls are available at https://nro.net/crisp-team) > Additionally, they were included in the CRISP team’s matrix of community > comments and concerns posted at: > https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015 > > The CRISP team’s final position is effectively summarised in the text of > our response to the ICG RFP: > > “The RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft the > specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process, the > RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and that > the drafting process will be guided by the principles listed below.” > [Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community, > p11] > > The RFP response then lists 11 IANA Service Level Agreement Principles. > This was based on taking into account of feedback on the ianaxfer > mailing list, to bring the proposal back to describing high level > principles. > > The CRISP team’s position took into account the concerns raised by Mr > Hill, and addressed some points he has raised, such as describing in the > proposal that RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR > communities, as quoted earlier. > > The CRISP Team was also informed by other feedback received via the > ianaxfer mailing list, particularly those mails which explicitly > supported the approach of delegating contract authorship to the RIR > legal teams. Posts by Hans Petter Holen (7 Jan,10 Jan) Seun Ojedeji (7 > Jan) Gerard Ross (11 January), Jim Reid (12 January), Andrew Dul (12 > January) and Dmitry Burkov (13 January) specifically endorsed this view. > All of these mails can be read at: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/date.html > > A further concern noted by Mr Hill: >> That is, how can NTIA be expected to approve a proposal when important >> details are left open and have not been reviewed or endorsed by the global >> multi-stakeholder community? > > The CRISP team has crafted a proposal that reflects the value that the > community places on the number-related IANA functions. This is reflected > in the proposal to safeguard the RIR communities’ stewardship over these > functions via a contractual relationship. It is the responsibility of > the parties to a contract to negotiate a contract. The CRISP team > believes that by directing the RIRs to consult with their communities > and by laying down the principles mentioned above, we have established a > framework within which the RIR legal staff can effectively negotiate in > the best interests of the community. > > Finally, Mr Hill has expressed that "there was limited input and the > outcome was largely influenced by the CRISP team and the RIR staff”. As > noted above, there were numerous posts to the ianaxfer mailing list, > many of which touched specifically on the issues discussed by Mr Hill. > From 17 October 2014 to 29 January 2015 there were 372 mails to the > ianaxfer list and 134 subscribers - information on the list is available > at: https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > > I hope that this is a useful explanation of the CRISP team’s position in > regard to the issues raised by Mr Hill. I am of course happy to discuss > any of these issues in greater depth if this would be helpful. > > > Yours sincerely, > > Izumi Okutani > Chair, the CRISP Team > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns"
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" > Date: February 4, 2015 at 11:53:49 AM PST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear all, > > > I would like to share the CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process > Concerns", which has been posted to icg-forum. > > I welcome your comments and feedback about our reponse which is likely > to be a reference to the ICG. > > Explicit expressing support would be extremely helpful as well. > > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" > Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:37:01 +0900 > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: icg-forum(a)icann.org > > Dear ICG members, > > > On 22 January 2015 Guru Acharya wrote to the icg-forum list with a > number of concerns about the CRISP team process. > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00024.html > > The CRISP Team was not able to confirm concrete evidence/facts on these > concerns, as explained below. > > We also note that while present as an observer on a number of CRISP > teleconferences, we did not observe Guru Archaya raising any of these > concerns on ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list or on any of the regional > community lists on which the CRISP process was being discussed. > > > Guru Acharya writes: > >> I would like to highlight the following concerns about the process > adopted >> by CRISP, which disqualify it from satisfying the criteria of following a >> bottom-up multi-stakeholder process as mandated by the NTIA. >> >> 1) Top-down composition and selection of CRISP team: The CRISP team was a >> closed group selected by the RIR executive committee by way of an > interview >> process. Interested participants were excluded from the working group if >> they did not successfully qualify for the interviews conducted by the RIR >> executive committee. The selection criteria for the candidates was > not made >> public by the RIR executive committee. This is important given that >> non-CRISP participants were excluded from the decision-making process. > > > Before setting up the CRISP Team, RIRs published the process for > producing a single proposal from the global IP addressing community to > the NTIA, and there was an opportunity for discussions on the public > <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list as below: > > On 16 October the five RIRs published a process for producing a single > proposal from the global IP addressing community to the NTIA. > https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship… > > According to this process the CRISP team would consist of 15 members, > two appointees from each RIR region who are not RIR staff, and one RIR > staff member from each region, who shall assist with the submission > development effort. Each RIR was to appoint their CRISP team members by > a method of its own choosing by 15 November 2014. There was some > discussion on the public <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list on 21 October > about standardising a CRISP team selection process across all five RIR > regions, but no broader community support was expressed for this change. > See: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-October/000016.html > > Following this announcement each of the five RIRs announced an open call > for participants, to which any one could express their interest, as well > as the process according to which the selection of the CRISP members > would be conducted. The process and relevant announcements of each RIR > are described in the Internet Number Community Response to the ICG RFP > (sections VI.B.1-VI.B.5 on "Community Process"). > > In most cases the RIR executive committees made the final selection of > CRISP representatives from community volunteers. At no point in the > process were any explicit objections raised to any of the CRISP team > members, nor were any appeals made by volunteers not selected to join > the CRISP team. > >> >> 2) Top-down decision-making by the CRISP team: While the general > public was >> invited to provide comments for the draft proposals prepared by > CRISP, they >> were excluded from the decision-making process. Commenters were merely >> informed that their input had either been accepted or rejected by the > CRISP >> team after due consideration. Notably, non-CRISP participants were not >> allowed to contribute to CRISP's tele-conferences or CRISP's internal >> mailing list, where the actual decision-making took place. Mere >> consultation of the general public without their involvement in the >> decision-making process does not constitute a bottom-up multi-stakeholder >> process. > > > Each of the RIR communities had conducted discussions on the IANA > stewardship transition for the IANA Numbering Services and the role of > the CRISP Team is to consolidate it as a single global proposal. > > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated… > > The proposal to establish a CRISP team was distributed to all of the RIR > communities and the <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list established on 16 > October 2015. The first CRISP team teleconference was held on 9 December > 2015. This provided the community with nearly two months during which > they could comment on or object to any elements of the proposal to set > up the CRISP team (as noted above, there was some discussion around 21 > October relating to CRISP team selection processes, but there was not > community support for changing the proposed process). > > The CRISP team members agreed with the arrangements laid out in the > proposal (while developing some additional mechanisms, including the > internal CRISP mailing list and a working definition of quorum for the > group). CRISP team members also understood a key part of their role to > be facilitating input from the regional communities, and this was > evident throughout the process - teleconference notes from the third > teleconference onwards record various CRISP team members conveying input > from their regional mailing lists. > > Invitations to join the CRISP Team Teleconferences as observers were > sent to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list, which were forwarded to mailing > lists of RIR regions by the CRISP Team members. > > Subscription to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list was open to anyone, and > there was no restrictions on posting comments to the list, including > making comments about the CRISP Team discussions at any of the CRISP > Team Teleconferences. > > A concrete record of all the concerns raised by the community on various > mailing lists was prepared by the CRISP team and made available at: > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRODiscussionList_20150116.pdf > > This spreadsheet indicated the issue, the initial mail in which the > issue was raised, the CRISP team's discussion of the issue and the > current CRISP team position. This clearly demonstrates that the process > of community participation facilitated by the CRISP team worked smoothly > to address a wide range of community input throughout the process. > >> >> 3) Lack of information and transparency: The CRISP team had two mailing >> lists. The mailing list used internally by the CRISP team was a closed >> mailing list that was not publicly archived till after the proposal was >> finalised. This resulted in community evaluation of the process and >> proposal in the absence of requisite information about the reasons > for any >> decisions. > > As noted in the initial CRISP team proposal and charter, "The CRISP team > shall also work through a public mailing list and the archive of such > mailing list will be publicly available. The name of the mailing list > will be <ianaxfer(a)nro.net>. > > At its initial teleconference, CRISP team members suggested that a > separate mailing list for use by CRISP team members only would be useful > in the interest of efficiency and to allow quick editing iterations on > the proposed response. > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-December-9-meeting-DRAFT-NOTES… > > While there was general agreement, concerns about transparency were also > noted, resulting in a commitment to publish archives of the internal > list at the time of publishing the first draft (19 December 2014). The > archive was publicly available from this point and some CRISP team > members shared a link to the archive with their communities directly. A > direct link to this mailing list archive was posted to the ianaxfer > mailing list and on the NRO CRISP webpage after 8 January 2015 due to an > oversight, while the archives were publicly made available when the > first draft of the proposal was published on 19 December. > > The archive of the internal mailing list is available at: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/ > > It is possible to confirm from our announcements that links to the > archives of the CRISP team mailing list was intended to be shared from > publication of the first draft proposal: > > "Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including recordings, > minutes and agendas of all CRISP teleconferences and a public archive > of the internal CRISP team mailing list, are available at: > https://nro.net/crisp-team" > > https://www.nro.net/news/first-draft-proposal-of-the-internet-number-commun… > > https://www.nro.net/news/internet-number-community-iana-stewardship-proposa… > > >> >> 4) Refusal to deal with essential aspects of the proposal: The CRISP team >> refused to deal with essential aspects of proposal such as the contract >> renewal process, contract duration, jurisdiction, arbitration process, >> review process, high level details of the contract, intellectual property >> rights, charter of the review team and service levels. The CRISP team > cited >> these essential aspects as outside the scope of the CRISP mandate. If the >> CRISP mandate is indeed so limited, then its incomplete proposal > should be >> returned to the RIR community with the suggestion of expanding the > mandate >> of the CRISP team. Note that the charter of the CRISP team, which was >> prepared by the NRO EC in a top-down manner, does not suggest that such >> essential aspects should be excluded from the proposal. This limited >> interpretation of the agenda and issues by the CRISP team is against the >> ethos of a bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. > > As noted above, a concrete record of all the concerns raised by the > community on various mailing lists was prepared by the CRISP team and > made available at: > https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015 > > This spreadsheet, the records and notes from CRISP teleconferences and > the archived mails on both the internal and public mailing lists > demonstrate that the CRISP team closely considered all issues, concerns > or suggestions raised by the community via ianaxfer(a)nro.net or the > regional discussion lists. Where specific suggestions were not reflected > in the proposal, detailed justification was provided to the community > via the ianaxfer mailing list. > > While the CRISP team did note certain constraints on its remit, as it > understood that remit, the issues noted by Guru Acharya were addressed > specifically in the following mails to the public <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > mailing list: > > Contract details in general, including renewal process, duration: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000213.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000135.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000143.html > > Jurisdiction: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000331.html > > Arbitration process: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000331.html > > Review process: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000134.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000172.html > > Intellectual property rights: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000145.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000127.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000342.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000173.html > > Charter of the review team: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000320.html > > While developing the proposal, the CRISP team was conscious about its > remit and responsibility. In the process of addressing issues and the > elements of the proposal the team felt that it was important to identify > the critical components and implementation requirements, rather than > work out the actual implementation details. Our position was that the > latter should be developed by qualified RIR legal teams following the > best practices in this field. As stated in the response to the ICG "The > RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft the > specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process, the > RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and that > the drafting process will be guided by the principles listed below." > [Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community, > p11] > > We believe that the proposal submitted to the ICG meets the expectations > of the numbers community, while not extending into areas beyond the > authority or expertise of the CRISP team. > > I hope that this effectively addresses the issues raised in this email, > and I would be happy to expand further on any issues you feel could > benefit from more explanation. > > > Yours sincerely, > Izumi Okutani > Chair, the CRISP Team > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP - Process Concerns
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP - Process Concerns > Date: February 4, 2015 at 11:49:32 AM PST > To: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > Cc: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > > Hi Alissa and colleagues on the IANAXFER list, > > > I would like to inform you that the CRISP Team have submitted our > reponse to the following two posts with comments about the CRISP Team > and the proposal from the number resources community. > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00024.html > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00020.html > > As our reponse is not reflected immediately on the web archives, I will > foward them to this list as seperate e-mails to follow. > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani > Chair, the CRISP Team > > On 2015/02/04 5:17, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Hi Izumi, >> >> As of now we are not asking for a specific response from you. We will be discussing the CRISP proposal on Feb 6-7. If we have specific questions for you, we will send them to you after that. >> >> Best, >> Alissa >> >> On Feb 2, 2015, at 7:10 AM, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> wrote: >> >>> Hi Alissa, >>> >>> >>> Thank you for the guidance. As advised, the CRISP Team will prepare the >>> response just as if we have received comments on the ianaxfer(a)nro.net. >>> >>> As a reference for our preparation - >>> is there a date and time (deadline) which the ICG expects response from >>> the CRISP Team, for the comments the ICG has forwarded to this list? >>> >>> If there is, I would appreciate it if you could share it with us. >>> >>> Thank you and the ICG once again for sharing the comments posted on >>> icg-forum and bringing them to our attention. >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> Izumi, on behalf of the CRISP Team >>> >>> On 2015/01/31 9:55, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>> Hi Izumi, >>>> >>>> I wanted to share the note below from the ICG. >>>> >>>> The ICG suggests that you take all comments the ICG has forwarded to you from http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/ about your proposal or the process of creating it as if they were made inside your process and address them as you normally would. >>>> >>>> The ICG is aware of the comments. If the ICG has specific questions to you based on the comments we will explicitly ask them to you as part of our normal ICG process just like any other question we may have. >>>> >>>> Let me know if you have questions. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alissa on behalf of the ICG >>>> >>>> On Jan 23, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you Alissa for sharing this post with us. >>>>> >>>>> Just to share the CRISP Team's discussions with everyone, we are aware >>>>> of this post as well as the earlier post submitted to icg-forum shared >>>>> by John Curran. >>>>> >>>>> Since we see icg-forum as the communication channel for the community to >>>>> the ICG, we do not feel appropriate to respond directly to the post(s) >>>>> to icg-forum as the CRISP Team at this stage. >>>>> >>>>> If the ICG considers the response is needed from the CRISP Team and >>>>> requests us to do so, we are happy to prepare our response. We would >>>>> appreciate to have guidance from the ICG, whether it helps the ICG to >>>>> have response from the CRISP Team to the comment posted to icg-forum. >>>>> >>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00024.html >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Alissa for keeping us informed of the post which is relevant >>>>> to our proposal. Please let us know if there is anything the CRISP Team >>>>> can do to support the ICG in your considerations and activities. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> Izumi Okutani >>>>> The CRISP Team Chair >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2015/01/23 3:32, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00024.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ianaxfer mailing list >>>>>> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >>>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ianaxfer mailing list >>>>> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >>>> >>>> >>> >> >

1 0

Welcome Alan Barrett
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Hi all, I wanted to welcome Alan Barrett to the ICG. Alan is participating on behalf of the NRO and replacing Adiel. Alan, please send us all a note introducing yourself. Looking forward to working with you. Alissa

8 8

CRISP proposal assessment
by Paul Wilson Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Dear all, Here attached is my assessment of the CRISP proposal. All the best Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100

5 5

Moderator for Monday Session
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

The suggestion has been to have an independent moderator. I have reached out to Pindar Wong that unfortunately can not be here in time, so, please suggest moderator! Patrik

7 7

Assessments, agenda singapore etc
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

All, First of all, I am happy to see assessments be added to the Dropbox in the folder Evaluation->Assessments->{Names,Numbers,Protocol Parameters}. Keep up the good work (yes, I know, I am working on the Numbers as promised). Secondly, I might not be able to participate on the call today due to speaking in the European Commission. It depends a bit on when my speaking slot actually ends up being. I might be able to participate on a portion of the call. Let me because of that report here in writing: - Move of website, mailing lists etc to new secretariat This is under way, and you might see first things moved already end of this week. Once again, a reminder that we will change domain name for the things we use. But we will also get new features, like a calendar(!). - Our f2f meeting in Singapore We will meet Friday and Saturday, and I suggest the following: Friday Welcome (Patrik) 9:00-09:30 - Agenda review - Outstanding minutes approval - Secretariat, logistics, teleconferences etc Status coordination with ICANN Accountability CCWG (Mohamed) 09:30-10:30 Break 10:30-11:00 Process finalization process, questions that are filed etc (Everyone) 11:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:00 Status for each one of the proposals (Everyone) 14:00-15:15 Break 15:15-15:45 Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 15:45-17:00 Group meeting(s) for people gathering in work sessions (food arrangements unclear) 17:00-21:00 Saturday Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 09:00-10:30 Break 10:30-11:00 Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 11:00-12:30 Summary, path forward and decisions if afternoon session is needed (Everyone) 12:30-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:00 Overflow: Status for each one of the proposals (Everyone) 14:00-15:15 Overflow: Break 15:15-15:45 Overflow: Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 15:45-17:00

5 8

Re: [Internal-cg] ICG web page comments
by Joseph Alhadeff Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Wasn't that supposed to be a secretariat competency? Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [jari.arkko(a)piuha.net] Received: Thursday, 05 Feb 2015, 8:39PM To: ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG web page comments I think we need some redesign of the ICG web pages. They are not very easy to navigate, even for us, let alone outsiders. Some examples: * The first item under “Activities” is a call for comments from last August * There is no announcement regarding ICANN 52 agenda * There is no convenient place to go for “meetings” * "Activities” and “Documents” both have “ICG Documents” * The main page lists several categories of things at the bottom (like “Members”) but you cannot click them, and you have to find the clickable item from the right. * What’s the difference between “Members” and “Meet the ICG”? I’d suggest a simpler and more straightforward design, now that we have a fair bit of material. Maybe something like this on the top-level: * About * Members * Transition proposals * Other documents * Meeting schedule * Calls for input In any case, I guess what I am saying is that someone needs to go over the current material and re-organise it in logical fashion. Jari

4 3

ICG web page comments
by Jari Arkko Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

I think we need some redesign of the ICG web pages. They are not very easy to navigate, even for us, let alone outsiders. Some examples: * The first item under “Activities” is a call for comments from last August * There is no announcement regarding ICANN 52 agenda * There is no convenient place to go for “meetings” * "Activities” and “Documents” both have “ICG Documents” * The main page lists several categories of things at the bottom (like “Members”) but you cannot click them, and you have to find the clickable item from the right. * What’s the difference between “Members” and “Meet the ICG”? I’d suggest a simpler and more straightforward design, now that we have a fair bit of material. Maybe something like this on the top-level: * About * Members * Transition proposals * Other documents * Meeting schedule * Calls for input In any case, I guess what I am saying is that someone needs to go over the current material and re-organise it in logical fashion. Jari

3 2