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-finaliz...> 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
Dear Alissa, I hope every thing is ok with you. I do not think that we could proceed with B) and C) in a complete manner due to the fact that all three proposals in an integrated and consolidated fashion need to satisfy these requirements. In view of the late arrival of naming proposal we could make partial assessments of numbers and protocol. However, we need ti review those assessments once reply from names arrived . Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 16 Feb 2015, at 18:49, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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-finaliz...> 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Kavouss, I agree that we will need to do the Step 2 assessment again when we receive the names proposal. But the idea is to do it now for the two proposals we have already received so as to expedite the overall process, and then when we do it a second time we will have less ground to cover. Both of the timeline proposals we have under consideration incorporate this optimization. Best, Alissa On Feb 17, 2015, at 3:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alissa, I hope every thing is ok with you. I do not think that we could proceed with B) and C) in a complete manner due to the fact that all three proposals in an integrated and consolidated fashion need to satisfy these requirements. In view of the late arrival of naming proposal we could make partial assessments of numbers and protocol. However, we need ti review those assessments once reply from names arrived . Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 16 Feb 2015, at 18:49, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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-finaliz...> 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa: You have provided a good framework for continuing work on the proposals. I agree that we have completed step A (compatibility and interop) for the numbers and protocols proposals. IETF's IANAPLAN WG seems to have come very close to a consensus that "the IETF Trust [is] an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain" and that "The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the IANA mark, and iana.org domain in behalf of the Internet community" so it appears likely that we will not have any incompatibility to worry about. I think it is appropriate for us to begin to consider B (accountability) and C (workability). I have some thoughts on B that I will try to convey to the list before the Feb 19th call, which I am not sure I can make. --MM From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 12:50 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment 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-finaliz...> 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
Great, thanks. Note that we do not have a call this week. We are working with the secretariat on future call scheduling starting next week. Alissa On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:10 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Alissa: You have provided a good framework for continuing work on the proposals.
I agree that we have completed step A (compatibility and interop) for the numbers and protocols proposals. IETF’s IANAPLAN WG seems to have come very close to a consensus that “the IETF Trust [is] an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain” and that “The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the IANA mark, and iana.org domain in behalf of the Internet community” so it appears likely that we will not have any incompatibility to worry about.
I think it is appropriate for us to begin to consider B (accountability) and C (workability). I have some thoughts on B that I will try to convey to the list before the Feb 19th call, which I am not sure I can make.
--MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 12:50 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment
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-finaliz...> 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
This week is "Chinese New Year" week! Most of Chinese take a week vocation. But I will check email as well. :-) Kuo Wu 從我的 iPhone 傳送
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> 於 2015年2月18日 09:21 寫道：
Great, thanks. Note that we do not have a call this week. We are working with the secretariat on future call scheduling starting next week.
Alissa
On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:10 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Alissa: You have provided a good framework for continuing work on the proposals.
I agree that we have completed step A (compatibility and interop) for the numbers and protocols proposals. IETF’s IANAPLAN WG seems to have come very close to a consensus that “the IETF Trust [is] an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain” and that “The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the IANA mark, and iana.org domain in behalf of the Internet community” so it appears likely that we will not have any incompatibility to worry about.
I think it is appropriate for us to begin to consider B (accountability) and C (workability). I have some thoughts on B that I will try to convey to the list before the Feb 19th call, which I am not sure I can make.
--MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 12:50 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment
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-finaliz...> 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Alissa, Dear Milton Dear All, I have no problem provided that the reply from Alissa to my comment as quoted below be strictly and duly implemented Quote from Alissa replt to Kavouss Comment *" Kavouss * *I agree that we will need to do the Step 2 assessment again when we receive the names proposal. But the idea is to do it now for the two proposals we have already received so as to expedite the overall process, and then when we do it a second time we will have less ground to cover. Both of the timeline proposals we have under consideration incorporate this optimization.* *Alissa " * Unquote Kavouss 2015-02-18 11:57 GMT+01:00 Wu Kuo <kuoweiwu@gmail.com>:
This week is "Chinese New Year" week! Most of Chinese take a week vocation. But I will check email as well.
:-)
Kuo Wu
從我的 iPhone 傳送
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> 於 2015年2月18日 09:21 寫道：
Great, thanks. Note that we do not have a call this week. We are working with the secretariat on future call scheduling starting next week.
Alissa
On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:10 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Alissa: You have provided a good framework for continuing work on the proposals.
I agree that we have completed step A (compatibility and interop) for the numbers and protocols proposals. IETF’s IANAPLAN WG seems to have come very close to a consensus that “the IETF Trust [is] an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain” and that “The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the IANA mark, and iana.org domain in behalf of the Internet community” so it appears likely that we will not have any incompatibility to worry about.
I think it is appropriate for us to begin to consider B (accountability) and C (workability). I have some thoughts on B that I will try to convey to the list before the Feb 19th call, which I am not sure I can make.
--MM
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* Monday, February 16, 2015 12:50 PM *To:* ICG *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment
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-finaliz...> 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Kung Hey Fat Choi From: Wu Kuo [mailto:kuoweiwu@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:57 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: Milton L Mueller; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment This week is "Chinese New Year" week! Most of Chinese take a week vocation. But I will check email as well. :-) Kuo Wu 從我的 iPhone 傳送 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> 於 2015年2月18日 09:21 寫道： Great, thanks. Note that we do not have a call this week. We are working with the secretariat on future call scheduling starting next week. Alissa On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:10 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: Alissa: You have provided a good framework for continuing work on the proposals. I agree that we have completed step A (compatibility and interop) for the numbers and protocols proposals. IETF’s IANAPLAN WG seems to have come very close to a consensus that “the IETF Trust [is] an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain” and that “The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the IANA mark, and iana.org<http://iana.org/> domain in behalf of the Internet community” so it appears likely that we will not have any incompatibility to worry about. I think it is appropriate for us to begin to consider B (accountability) and C (workability). I have some thoughts on B that I will try to convey to the list before the Feb 19th call, which I am not sure I can make. --MM From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 12:50 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment 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-finaliz...> 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Alissa, I also think it appropriate for us to begin considering parts B and C. And I concur that we have completed step A. Best, Lynn On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Alissa: You have provided a good framework for continuing work on the proposals.
I agree that we have completed step A (compatibility and interop) for the numbers and protocols proposals. IETF’s IANAPLAN WG seems to have come very close to a consensus that “the IETF Trust [is] an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain” and that “The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the IANA mark, and iana.org domain in behalf of the Internet community” so it appears likely that we will not have any incompatibility to worry about.
I think it is appropriate for us to begin to consider B (accountability) and C (workability). I have some thoughts on B that I will try to convey to the list before the Feb 19th call, which I am not sure I can make.
--MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 12:50 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment
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-finaliz...> 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Alissa .. I also agree to the proposed way forward in order to utilize our time effectively and facilitate the work ahead of us when we receive the names proposal .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment Hi Alissa, I also think it appropriate for us to begin considering parts B and C. And I concur that we have completed step A. Best, Lynn On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Alissa: You have provided a good framework for continuing work on the proposals.
I agree that we have completed step A (compatibility and interop) for the numbers and protocols proposals. IETF's IANAPLAN WG seems to have come very close to a consensus that "the IETF Trust [is] an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain" and that "The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the IANA mark, and iana.org domain in behalf of the Internet community" so it appears likely that we will not have any incompatibility to worry about.
I think it is appropriate for us to begin to consider B (accountability) and C (workability). I have some thoughts on B that I will try to convey to the list before the Feb 19th call, which I am not sure I can make.
--MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 12:50 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment
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-fi nalization-24dec14-en.pdf> 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Agree with the path forward, and would also suggest that we keep the Names community apprised of our progress on related work as things they may wish to consider in the development of their proposal. On 2/18/2015 2:26 AM, Manal Ismail wrote:
Thanks Alissa .. I also agree to the proposed way forward in order to utilize our time effectively and facilitate the work ahead of us when we receive the names proposal .. Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment
Hi Alissa,
I also think it appropriate for us to begin considering parts B and C. And I concur that we have completed step A.
Best, Lynn
On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Alissa: You have provided a good framework for continuing work on the proposals.
I agree that we have completed step A (compatibility and interop) for the numbers and protocols proposals. IETF's IANAPLAN WG seems to have come very close to a consensus that "the IETF Trust [is] an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain" and that "The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the IANA mark, and iana.org domain in behalf of the Internet community" so it appears likely that we will not have any incompatibility to worry about.
I think it is appropriate for us to begin to consider B (accountability) and C (workability). I have some thoughts on B that I will try to convey to the list before the Feb 19th call, which I am not sure I can make.
--MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 12:50 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment
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-fi nalization-24dec14-en.pdf> 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
First, I agree with the proposed way forward, and that we should focus on parts B and C now. (With obvious further work down the line for us when the names proposal is ready.) And I very much agree with this point of view from Joe:
Agree with the path forward, and would also suggest that we keep the Names community apprised of our progress on related work as things they may wish to consider in the development of their proposal.
Finally, back to substance - part B deals with accountability. With the help of our IANA program at IAB, Russ and I recently wrote an informational piece that talks about how we view accountability and stability for protocol parameters. There’s nothing new here if you’ve read the relevant RFCs, the proposal, and other documents, but it may be a helpful explanation of the big picture: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/02/ensuring-continuity-of-the-iana-registries/ As for the relationship of protocol and number proposals wrt accountability, I think the arrangements are very similar and at this point I cannot see any conflicts or missed areas. Looking forward to input from others. For part C, I think the answers from IETF perspective are rather obvious, as we are continuing existing practices and the adjustments are relatively minor. But again, I think we’ve already talked about the main differences between the protocol and number proposals, and it seems easy to find a path forward where they can work together. Cheers, Jari
Dear Jari,,Dear Paul Dear All Thank you Jari for the message and hyperlink providing additional information in regard on how the accountability has been dealt till now. However, in order to be quite clear, there seems to be appropriate that anything relating to accountability is addressed by CCWG a competent group established for this purpose. Similar Course of action could be equally applied to numbers It may there be good to liaise with them on this regard and seek whether there would be any additional actions or measures to be taken 2015-02-22 8:57 GMT+01:00 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>:
First, I agree with the proposed way forward, and that we should focus on parts B and C now. (With obvious further work down the line for us when the names proposal is ready.)
And I very much agree with this point of view from Joe:
Agree with the path forward, and would also suggest that we keep the Names community apprised of our progress on related work as things they may wish to consider in the development of their proposal.
Finally, back to substance - part B deals with accountability. With the help of our IANA program at IAB, Russ and I recently wrote an informational piece that talks about how we view accountability and stability for protocol parameters. There’s nothing new here if you’ve read the relevant RFCs, the proposal, and other documents, but it may be a helpful explanation of the big picture:
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/02/ensuring-continuity-of-the-iana-registries/
As for the relationship of protocol and number proposals wrt accountability, I think the arrangements are very similar and at this point I cannot see any conflicts or missed areas. Looking forward to input from others.
For part C, I think the answers from IETF perspective are rather obvious, as we are continuing existing practices and the adjustments are relatively minor. But again, I think we’ve already talked about the main differences between the protocol and number proposals, and it seems easy to find a path forward where they can work together.
Cheers,
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Agree .. That's why I was asking whether the ICG should bring to the attention of the CWG-Stewardship the way forward regarding the IANA trademark and domain name, as per the protocol parameters and the numbers proposals .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:28 PM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment On 18.02.15 16:23 , joseph alhadeff wrote:
Agree with the path forward, and would also suggest that we keep the Names community apprised of our progress on related work as things they may wish to consider in the development of their proposal.
Exactly! Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, I continue to maintain my comments as already forwarded It is necessary to reflect the views / course of action referred to by Jari Regards Kavouss 2015-02-22 16:22 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:
Agree .. That's why I was asking whether the ICG should bring to the attention of the CWG-Stewardship the way forward regarding the IANA trademark and domain name, as per the protocol parameters and the numbers proposals ..
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:28 PM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment
On 18.02.15 16:23 , joseph alhadeff wrote:
Agree with the path forward, and would also suggest that we keep the Names community apprised of our progress on related work as things they may wish to consider in the development of their proposal.
Exactly!
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I also wish to support the proposed path forward, bringing same to the attention of the names community would greatly help the process. Going by the new ideas/model being canvassed by the CWG-IANA self volunteered drafting group, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5Y... keeping the Names Community in the loop of progress would greatly enhance their work or at least provide information to assist greater or earlier convergence of ideas.On the side of the ICG, the path forward would be the best use of our time. Mary Uduma On Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All,I continue to maintain my comments as already forwardedIt is necessary to reflect the views / course of action referred to by JariRegardsKavouss 2015-02-22 16:22 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: Agree .. That's why I was asking whether the ICG should bring to the attention of the CWG-Stewardship the way forward regarding the IANA trademark and domain name, as per the protocol parameters and the numbers proposals .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:28 PM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment On 18.02.15 16:23 , joseph alhadeff wrote:
Agree with the path forward, and would also suggest that we keep the Names community apprised of our progress on related work as things they may wish to consider in the development of their proposal.
Exactly! Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (10)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Jari Arkko -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Manal Ismail -
Mary Uduma -
Milton L Mueller -
Wu Kuo