Milton & J-J, I should perhaps clarify a bit on my previous email. What I should have probably said is that if the operational communities feel that the cost/charging/business model for IANA services is an important aspect, then this should be part of their proposals that are submitted to the ICG - the ICG needs to identify conflicts in that area just like it will need to for many other areas of the operational communities proposals. What I do not see as part of the ICG remit is the addition of issues to the consolidated proposal that are in the realm of the operational communities such as the cost/charging/business or issues that may be somewhat related to current operations but beyond (outside of) the current set of operations. In the case of the cost/charging/business example, the ICG might decide to return one or more operational communities proposals if there was a serious gap that the ICG believe the operational communities need to address but introducing things brought to the ICG by other communities seems to violate our charter. If this is needed, it would seem to fall under the agreed to approach of getting the "other community" (whoever that might be) to interact with the one or more operational communities involved. It also seems that the globalization example should be handled in the same way. It is somewhat different from other issue in that there is no mention of it in the current IANA Functions contract but if the operational communities do not address it in their proposals and another community brings it to the ICG, I believe that our remit only permits us to ask the communities to work together. While I certainly believe ICANN's globalization activities are an important set things, I do not think that it would be wise or within our remit for the ICG to add issues that are not included by the the operational communities particularly if these issues are not part of the current IANA Functions contract. Russ On Oct 13, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Russ
While I am not eager to get involved in any discussion of IANA’s business model, the idea that this falls outside of our remit is clearly not true. It is at least conceivable, if not probable, that ending NTIA’s role will lead to organizational changes that might lead one or more of the parties involved, either a provider or user of IANA services, to consider changing the no charge method. A change in Verisign’s role might also do so.
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy
These sound like they are items that are outside of the current contract (unless he's saying that a $0 contract means lack of charging). Although there may be other examples, I think these two things fall outside of the ICG remit since removing NTIA and the NTIA / ICANN contract would not have any relationship to these examples.
RussM
Alissa
On Oct 12, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
Alissa:
I'm not sure that there are any orphan issues that directly impact the IANA registries. There are certainly issues that span more than one operational community. Can you explain what is meant here?
Russ
On Oct 12, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
The ALAC chair has shared a few placeholder questions with me for our Tuesday session and I wanted to pass them on: How decisions are made? How will proposals be consolidated? How does the ICG suggest handling Orphan Issues that do not fit in one or another operational community proposal? Proposals vs. Inputs -- will Inputs only be comments on the proposals? Can Inputs be any types of input? Will inputs from ICG members be considered on the same level as Proposals? Emphasize that Accountability component is needed for all proposals coming to the ICG.
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg