I was thinking 21 days. Narelle -- Narelle Clark Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote: Alissa is awaiting suggestions for a date for a response to this question. My suggestion is that we request that they tell us within 30 days _how_ they plan to go about resolving this issue (e.g., meetings, etc.) and once they respond in that way we ask them to suggest a timeline for how quickly they think they can resolve it. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 8:50 PM To: Jennifer Chung; 'ICG' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015 Jennifer, You forgot the question we agreed to send jointly to the numbers and protocol parameters group. I was responsible for this, but yesterday when I said it was “done” I meant that the question had been approved by the group. I do not think it was “finished” in the sense that we have formally transmitted it to the two OCs. I would like to know how that will be done, and when. For everyone’s reference, here is the agreed question: The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org<http://iana.org> domain as a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://IANA.ORG> domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://IANA.ORG> domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.” 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? From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 6:40 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015 Hello All, As reviewed by the ICG chairs, please find the list of action items from the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4 below: 1. Secretariat to summarize questions/answers resolved internally about the protocol parameters proposal and numbers proposal discussed. 2. Arkko to compile a list of for a request for information from the protocol parameters community re jurisdiction, NTIA oversight and send it to internal-cg list. 3. Wilson to request clarification from CRISP team, questions put forth by Arasteh (regarding Section II.B.2 and III.A of the numbers proposal). 4. ICG chairs to review details of the proposal finalization process and refine ICG timeline with assistance from Secretariat. 5. Ismail, Arasteh, St. Amour, Alhadeff, Subrenat to continue working on community comments handling document with suggestions put forward by other ICG members. 6. ICG to continue to discuss and agree on talking points and ICG chairs to send bullet points for Monday session on the internal-cg list. 7. Fältström to communicate with CWG-IANA and CCWG-Accountability before coordinating ICG teleconference schedule. Best Regards, Jennifer