- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

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

Feb. 26, 2015

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

1 0

Conclusion of Step 2 assessment for IETF+RIR proposals
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

I took an action on our Feb 25 call to confirm on the mailing list whether we have concluded our Step 2 assessment of the protocol parameters and numbers proposals. As a reminder, Step 2 of our proposal finalization process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali…> involves assessing the proposals together for the following: > A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner? > > B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal? > > C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination? A number of people on the call (Milton, Lynn, Patrik, Daniel, Joe) expressed their satisfaction that, together, the protocol parameters and numbers proposals we have received meet the above criteria and that we can conclude our Step 2 assessment for these two proposals. If others have thoughts to share on this topic, whether in support of concluding the Step 2 assessment of these proposals or otherwise, please send them to the list. Note that of course we will revisit this Step 2 assessment process for all three proposals together after we receive a names proposal. Thanks, Alissa

2 1

REMINDER: ICG Teleconferences Mar 2015 - Doodle Poll to act on
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

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

1 0

Attendance Roll Call for ICG Call #12
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

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

1 0

Action items from ICG Call #12, 25 February 2015
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

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

1 0

Finalizing the comments proposal
by joseph alhadeff Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

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

2 1

Action item from ICG F2F
by Jari Arkko Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

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

1 0

Reminder - Senate Hearings Wednesday
by James M. Bladel Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

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

1 0

Regrets - will miss call
by Elise Gerich Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

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

2 1

ICG call
by WUKnoben Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

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

6 6