- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

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

Feb. 23, 2015

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

3 3

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

Feb. 23, 2015

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

2 1

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

Feb. 23, 2015

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

2 2

Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
by Manal Ismail Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Dear All .. Please find attached steps for handling community comments received on ICG Forum .. I hope this accurately reflects the discussion we had in Singapore .. I have created a new document as it describes a different approach and was too messy in track changes .. The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wish to reference .. I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake of time .. Hope to have this settled soon .. Kind Regards --Manal

5 11

Step 2 assessment
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 22, 2015

Feb. 22, 2015

Hi all, Given the sense at our face-to-face meeting that folks wanted to proceed with our assessment of the protocol parameters and numbers proposals while we await the names proposal, I’d like to start a discussion about getting that going. Step 2 of our proposal finalization process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali…> involves assessing the proposals together for the following: > A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner? > > B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal? > > C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination? We seem to have already tackled (A) during our individual assessment phase. Other than awaiting the responses from the IETF and RIR communities to the IPR question we asked them and the clarifications/summaries that individual ICG members agreed to provide after the F2F, do people feel that there is any outstanding work to be done to complete (A) for the two proposals received? For (B) and (C), I would suggest that we make these an agenda item on an upcoming call (either the next one or the one after it - Patrik is working on the scheduling), and that people think about these items and share their thoughts about them on the list in the meantime. Does anyone think we should proceed differently? Thanks, Alissa

10 16

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