- 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