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
Dear Chung Dear All,' Thank you very much fir the summary My last suggestions on paragraph 6 is not fully taken into account. Thus Paragraph 8 should appear as below 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., talking into account the comments made at the meeting ,in particular the suggestion of the Chair to the meeting QUIOTE* *" it is not productive to continue the discussing the bullet points( appears the scree )and instead made a general statements such as " ICG CONTINUE TO PROCESS THE PROPOOSALS FROM OPERATINOAL COMMITTEES IN HAND " without going into the details * *As for the timeline to say the following:ICG maintains the time line currenmtly based on the assumption that proposals from all three operational communities to be received on 15 January 2015. .However, in view of the fact that the proposal from Naming community will be received at later stage. ICG is considering to up date the TIME LINE BASED ON THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM NAMING COMMUNITY ON THE ESTIMATED DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF THEIR PROPOSAL .* *NO DETAILS STATE,MENT , NO REFERNCE TO 6 MONTHS DELAY NO REFERNCE TO POSTPONEMENT OF THE PROCESS AND JUST FACTUAL STATEMNT * *Kavouss * 2015-02-08 0:39 GMT+01:00 Jennifer Chung <jen@icgsec.asia>:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Jennifer, Colleagues, please note that we also provided input on contracting issues to the numbers proposal in the form of questions to help inform the work going forward, so I am not sure it's an action item per se, but it should be noted correctly, perhaps more appropriately in the minutes. Per request of the Chair, the questions were posted to the list. Should Daniel be listed as part of 5? Joe On 2/7/2015 6:39 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Sure .. Daniel should be listed as part of 5 and, from a later message, I can see that this has been already taken care of.. Thanks for noticing .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:23 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015 Jennifer, Colleagues, please note that we also provided input on contracting issues to the numbers proposal in the form of questions to help inform the work going forward, so I am not sure it's an action item per se, but it should be noted correctly, perhaps more appropriately in the minutes. Per request of the Chair, the questions were posted to the list. Should Daniel be listed as part of 5? Joe On 2/7/2015 6:39 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
All, I have a clarification question on the below two action points. Background: If ICG members do bring up issues, there are (at least) two different kind of issues / questions. A. Clarifications that ICG members want to have (in writing) which the what I call "token holder" inside the ICG can create. This is what I would call *INTERNAL* communication. This can directly be an action point by the "token holder" to create this writeup. The interaction will be visible in the mailing list archive, list of action points and minutes from the meetings. B. Questions that ICG send to the OC for clarification. This is to be formally sent to the OC, and a timer start ticking when we wait for action by the OC. These questions are to be sent by ICG Chair (Alissa), specifically posted on the ICG web page etc part from of course be visible in the minutes etc like [a]. Quite often [B] is preceded by [A]. When looking at these two action points, and trying to remember the discussion:
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).
I in fact do think both are of class [A] above, i.e. the 2nd is *NOT* for ICG to send a question to the Numbers OC, at least not at this stage. I.e. both action items should be actions on the token holder to do a writeup on summary of the discussions, and because of this, they should be: 2. Arkko to do write up of jurisdiction and NTIA oversight in the Protocols OC. 3. Wilson to do write up clarification re. questions put forth by Arasteh regarding Section II.B.2 and III.A of the Numbers OC. I do NOT see any of these two at this stage be communication between ICG and OC. But the 2nd might be. Whether things are class A and class B is and must also be driven by information from the token holder. That person MIGHT rather want things ICG might believe is class A to in fact be class B so that it is a more formal response. Patrik
Patrik: I think I understand the distinction you are making and it goes to the formal nature of the question and the need for a community response, versus the need for a response/clarification less formally provided by an appropriate representative. I would just highlight that where the clarification is requested within the course of the meeting, the response however informal is to the ICG as whole, and as such subject to inclusion in transcripts and minutes. I don't suggest you were implying otherwise, just wanted to clarify. Joe On 2/7/2015 7:46 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
All,
I have a clarification question on the below two action points.
Background: If ICG members do bring up issues, there are (at least) two different kind of issues / questions.
A. Clarifications that ICG members want to have (in writing) which the what I call "token holder" inside the ICG can create. This is what I would call *INTERNAL* communication. This can directly be an action point by the "token holder" to create this writeup. The interaction will be visible in the mailing list archive, list of action points and minutes from the meetings.
B. Questions that ICG send to the OC for clarification. This is to be formally sent to the OC, and a timer start ticking when we wait for action by the OC. These questions are to be sent by ICG Chair (Alissa), specifically posted on the ICG web page etc part from of course be visible in the minutes etc like [a].
Quite often [B] is preceded by [A].
When looking at these two action points, and trying to remember the discussion:
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). I in fact do think both are of class [A] above, i.e. the 2nd is *NOT* for ICG to send a question to the Numbers OC, at least not at this stage.
I.e. both action items should be actions on the token holder to do a writeup on summary of the discussions, and because of this, they should be:
2. Arkko to do write up of jurisdiction and NTIA oversight in the Protocols OC. 3. Wilson to do write up clarification re. questions put forth by Arasteh regarding Section II.B.2 and III.A of the Numbers OC.
I do NOT see any of these two at this stage be communication between ICG and OC. But the 2nd might be.
Whether things are class A and class B is and must also be driven by information from the token holder. That person MIGHT rather want things ICG might believe is class A to in fact be class B so that it is a more formal response.
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Joseph, you are absolutely interpreting me the right way. Internal ICG clarifications (class A below) absolutely have the criteria to be minuted, shared with ICG as a whole and otherwise made available for the full of ICG and follow the transparency requirements and implications we have for such communication. It is not only a "hallway chat" between ICG members. Patrik
On 8 feb 2015, at 08:53, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Patrik:
I think I understand the distinction you are making and it goes to the formal nature of the question and the need for a community response, versus the need for a response/clarification less formally provided by an appropriate representative. I would just highlight that where the clarification is requested within the course of the meeting, the response however informal is to the ICG as whole, and as such subject to inclusion in transcripts and minutes. I don't suggest you were implying otherwise, just wanted to clarify.
Joe On 2/7/2015 7:46 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
All,
I have a clarification question on the below two action points.
Background: If ICG members do bring up issues, there are (at least) two different kind of issues / questions.
A. Clarifications that ICG members want to have (in writing) which the what I call "token holder" inside the ICG can create. This is what I would call *INTERNAL* communication. This can directly be an action point by the "token holder" to create this writeup. The interaction will be visible in the mailing list archive, list of action points and minutes from the meetings.
B. Questions that ICG send to the OC for clarification. This is to be formally sent to the OC, and a timer start ticking when we wait for action by the OC. These questions are to be sent by ICG Chair (Alissa), specifically posted on the ICG web page etc part from of course be visible in the minutes etc like [a].
Quite often [B] is preceded by [A].
When looking at these two action points, and trying to remember the discussion:
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). I in fact do think both are of class [A] above, i.e. the 2nd is *NOT* for ICG to send a question to the Numbers OC, at least not at this stage.
I.e. both action items should be actions on the token holder to do a writeup on summary of the discussions, and because of this, they should be:
2. Arkko to do write up of jurisdiction and NTIA oversight in the Protocols OC. 3. Wilson to do write up clarification re. questions put forth by Arasteh regarding Section II.B.2 and III.A of the Numbers OC.
I do NOT see any of these two at this stage be communication between ICG and OC. But the 2nd might be.
Whether things are class A and class B is and must also be driven by information from the token holder. That person MIGHT rather want things ICG might believe is class A to in fact be class B so that it is a more formal response.
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Patrik and Joe for noting the distinction .. Just to make sure we're on the same page, in both cases we should be receiving written clarification / written response from the 'token holder' / the relevant OC respectively, right? I believe we need something in writing to be attached or annexed to the relevant submitted proposal .. Appreciate your confirmation .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:53 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015 Patrik: I think I understand the distinction you are making and it goes to the formal nature of the question and the need for a community response, versus the need for a response/clarification less formally provided by an appropriate representative. I would just highlight that where the clarification is requested within the course of the meeting, the response however informal is to the ICG as whole, and as such subject to inclusion in transcripts and minutes. I don't suggest you were implying otherwise, just wanted to clarify. Joe On 2/7/2015 7:46 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All, I have a clarification question on the below two action points. Background: If ICG members do bring up issues, there are (at least) two different kind of issues / questions. A. Clarifications that ICG members want to have (in writing) which the what I call "token holder" inside the ICG can create. This is what I would call *INTERNAL* communication. This can directly be an action point by the "token holder" to create this writeup. The interaction will be visible in the mailing list archive, list of action points and minutes from the meetings. B. Questions that ICG send to the OC for clarification. This is to be formally sent to the OC, and a timer start ticking when we wait for action by the OC. These questions are to be sent by ICG Chair (Alissa), specifically posted on the ICG web page etc part from of course be visible in the minutes etc like [a]. Quite often [B] is preceded by [A]. When looking at these two action points, and trying to remember the discussion: 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). I in fact do think both are of class [A] above, i.e. the 2nd is *NOT* for ICG to send a question to the Numbers OC, at least not at this stage. I.e. both action items should be actions on the token holder to do a writeup on summary of the discussions, and because of this, they should be: 2. Arkko to do write up of jurisdiction and NTIA oversight in the Protocols OC. 3. Wilson to do write up clarification re. questions put forth by Arasteh regarding Section II.B.2 and III.A of the Numbers OC. I do NOT see any of these two at this stage be communication between ICG and OC. But the 2nd might be. Whether things are class A and class B is and must also be driven by information from the token holder. That person MIGHT rather want things ICG might believe is class A to in fact be class B so that it is a more formal response. Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Patrik, the chair's interpretation is 100% correct: the ony formal question we agreed on was the "iana.org" one. The rest was just discussion among ourselves where people took actions to seek further clarification or to summmarise for our ongoing internal discussion. Daniel
+1Mary Uduma On Sunday, February 8, 2015 10:22 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote: Patrik, the chair's interpretation is 100% correct: the ony formal question we agreed on was the "iana.org" one. The rest was just discussion among ourselves where people took actions to seek further clarification or to summmarise for our ongoing internal discussion. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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] 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
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
Does waiting for the reply, impact the timing of any of the further review obligations we have? On 2/7/2015 8:58 PM, Milton L Mueller 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
In some ways we have already started on part of the next step, which includes assessing the compatibility of the proposals with each other. I think we should proceed with the rest of that step while we wait for responses, and then incorporate the responses as we receive them. To Milton’s suggestion, I’m not clear on why we need to know how the communities intend to arrive at an answer to what is a fairly straightforward question (are you willing to modify your proposal?). I agree with Patrik’s suggestion of 2 weeks. We can always follow up with the communities to find out how long actually doing the modification might take, if they are willing to modify. Alissa On Feb 7, 2015, at 6:07 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Does waiting for the reply, impact the timing of any of the further review obligations we have? On 2/7/2015 8:58 PM, Milton L Mueller 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 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 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 theIANA.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] 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Maybe .. What if an agreement was not reached? Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 4:08 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015 Does waiting for the reply, impact the timing of any of the further review obligations we have? On 2/7/2015 8:58 PM, Milton L Mueller 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 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 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 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] 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Manal, May you kindly provide me with the draft that is expected to be finalized by us. I did give you my comments before Kavouss 2015-02-08 18:24 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:
Maybe .. What if an agreement was not reached?
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *joseph alhadeff *Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2015 4:08 AM *To:* internal-cg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015
Does waiting for the reply, impact the timing of any of the further review obligations we have?
On 2/7/2015 8:58 PM, Milton L Mueller 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 <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 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 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 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 <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
_______________________________________________
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
Dear Mr. Arasteh .. Thank you for your kind follow-up, on the day of your travel .. Hope you had a smooth trip .. I’ve just shared the draft with the smaller group, i.e. colleagues listed in action item 5 below, in addition to Daniel .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 7:29 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: joseph alhadeff; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015 Dear Manal, May you kindly provide me with the draft that is expected to be finalized by us. I did give you my comments before Kavouss 2015-02-08 18:24 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: Maybe .. What if an agreement was not reached? Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 4:08 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015 Does waiting for the reply, impact the timing of any of the further review obligations we have? On 2/7/2015 8:58 PM, Milton L Mueller 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 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 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 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] 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 _______________________________________________ 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
So far we have talked about 2 weeks timer for the response when we are interacting with the OC's. That is what we are looking at when working on the timeline. If this is suddenly 4 weeks, it will have impact on the timeline as a whole. Patrik
On 8 feb 2015, at 09:58, 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 <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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On 8.02.15 10:18 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
So far we have talked about 2 weeks timer for the response when we are interacting with the OC's.
I remember that we would request a response within 14 calendar days for questions to other bodies from earlier planning discussions. I have never been quite clear whether that included public comment periods. But that is not relevant here. Daniel
I bid two weeks! Two weeks! Anyone bid 10 days? Two weeks going once, twice.... From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 9:18 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Jennifer Chung; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015 So far we have talked about 2 weeks timer for the response when we are interacting with the OC's. That is what we are looking at when working on the timeline. If this is suddenly 4 weeks, it will have impact on the timeline as a whole. Patrik On 8 feb 2015, at 09:58, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto: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> [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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Two statements of interest: 1. Don't even bother me with a partial proposal... 2. He pushed the names community to provide information on how long it would take them to implement the proposal? Is that something we should add more specifically to our questions? I don't think we've explored that dimension too much? Joe
Of course Larry wants the whole enchillada because that keeps the pressure on the names and that is the part that matters most to him. If this drags on more and more however I expect pressure from the other OCs to increase and NTIA might start considering accepting a partial success as their time runs out. Just my musings ..... --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 08.02.2015, at 10:39, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Two statements of interest:
1. Don't even bother me with a partial proposal...
2. He pushed the names community to provide information on how long it would take them to implement the proposal? Is that something we should add more specifically to our questions? I don't think we've explored that dimension too much?
Joe _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I agree with Daniel. To repeat what I think I have said before, it makes sense for everyone to keep progressing the transition work as far as we can, on all aspects. Be it in IETF, ICG, or elsewhere, or about addressing questions, coordinating what needs to be coordinated, cleaning up the things we have identified that we need to work on, and so on. We will all be in better position the further we are on this path and in our work. Put our own house in order. For instance, from the IETF perspective we’ve always wanted to ensure that we have as strong system as we need for handling IANA matters, because that is what serves our community and Internet users best. Jari
DearJoe That is exactly the question that I raised on 08 Feb. Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Feb 2015, at 09:39, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Two statements of interest:
1. Don't even bother me with a partial proposal...
2. He pushed the names community to provide information on how long it would take them to implement the proposal? Is that something we should add more specifically to our questions? I don't think we've explored that dimension too much?
Joe _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
It is not clear to me that the proposal needs to be updated. It depends on the outcome of a discussion that has not yet taken place. I would think that the IETF community will start the discussion on the mail list, and if the topic is controversial, there may be an IANAPLAN WG session at the IETF meeting in Dallas at the end of March. Russ On Feb 7, 2015, at 8:58 PM, Milton L Mueller 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 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 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 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] 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I think when we pose the question, we can ask that the communities respond within 2 weeks, or let us know within 2 weeks if they think they need more time and roughly how much. On Feb 7, 2015, at 8:16 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
It is not clear to me that the proposal needs to be updated. It depends on the outcome of a discussion that has not yet taken place. I would think that the IETF community will start the discussion on the mail list, and if the topic is controversial, there may be an IANAPLAN WG session at the IETF meeting in Dallas at the end of March.
Russ
On Feb 7, 2015, at 8:58 PM, Milton L Mueller 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 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 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 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] 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Apologies for not understanding, but can someone please explain the need for this particular deadline, in terms of the overall timeline? It seems to me there is plenty of time for the 2 proposals to be clarified/updated, before the ICG needs to do further work with them; and so no need to impose an immediate deadline. Thanks, Paul On 8 Feb 2015, at 2:25 pm, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I think when we pose the question, we can ask that the communities respond within 2 weeks, or let us know within 2 weeks if they think they need more time and roughly how much.
On Feb 7, 2015, at 8:16 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
It is not clear to me that the proposal needs to be updated. It depends on the outcome of a discussion that has not yet taken place. I would think that the IETF community will start the discussion on the mail list, and if the topic is controversial, there may be an IANAPLAN WG session at the IETF meeting in Dallas at the end of March.
Russ
On Feb 7, 2015, at 8:58 PM, Milton L Mueller 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 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 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 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] 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I think it is important because: 1. We in ICG demonstrate we use the same process for every group 2. We in ICG demonstrate we are moving forward with full speed ahead as much as we can given the two proposals we have Now, the suggestion is as Alissa say that the OC get two weeks to at least say whether they need more time -- which of course would be reasonable to request (and for us to approve) given the current situation. But the exception should be handled like an exception. Patrik
On 8 feb 2015, at 17:15, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
Apologies for not understanding, but can someone please explain the need for this particular deadline, in terms of the overall timeline? It seems to me there is plenty of time for the 2 proposals to be clarified/updated, before the ICG needs to do further work with them; and so no need to impose an immediate deadline.
Thanks,
Paul
On 8 Feb 2015, at 2:25 pm, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I think when we pose the question, we can ask that the communities respond within 2 weeks, or let us know within 2 weeks if they think they need more time and roughly how much.
On Feb 7, 2015, at 8:16 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
It is not clear to me that the proposal needs to be updated. It depends on the outcome of a discussion that has not yet taken place. I would think that the IETF community will start the discussion on the mail list, and if the topic is controversial, there may be an IANAPLAN WG session at the IETF meeting in Dallas at the end of March.
Russ
On Feb 7, 2015, at 8:58 PM, Milton L Mueller 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 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 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 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] 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 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On 8.02.15 17:32 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
I think it is important because:
1. We in ICG demonstrate we use the same process for every group
2. We in ICG demonstrate we are moving forward with full speed ahead as much as we can given the two proposals we have
Now, the suggestion is as Alissa say that the OC get two weeks to at least say whether they need more time -- which of course would be reasonable to request (and for us to approve) given the current situation.
But the exception should be handled like an exception.
Patrik
Exactly. Daniel
I would say there are two additional reasons: - In general I think whenever we ask for something from a community we should specify some time frame by which we expect to hear some response, even if that response is “we need more time.” Otherwise it will make it difficult for us to plan our own time. - It sounded during the F2F as if there is strong support for us to stick to the original time frames as best we can. That means we’re due to start our assessment of the two received proposals together — which includes an evaluation of their compatibility and interoperability -- in a week and complete it in 5 weeks. Alissa On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:49 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 8.02.15 17:32 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
I think it is important because:
1. We in ICG demonstrate we use the same process for every group
2. We in ICG demonstrate we are moving forward with full speed ahead as much as we can given the two proposals we have
Now, the suggestion is as Alissa say that the OC get two weeks to at least say whether they need more time -- which of course would be reasonable to request (and for us to approve) given the current situation.
But the exception should be handled like an exception.
Patrik
Exactly.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
+1 for 2 weeks for the reasons expressed by Alissa and Patrik .. - We have initially requested the OC to submit their full proposals within a few weeks, - If I understand correctly, we are seeking a yes/no answer with an estimated time frame, and are willing to accept "we need more time" As a response .. Should they reply affirmatively, do we expect a modified proposal or some sort of an annex or attachment to the original proposal ? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 5:09 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4,6-7 February 2015 I would say there are two additional reasons: - In general I think whenever we ask for something from a community we should specify some time frame by which we expect to hear some response, even if that response is "we need more time." Otherwise it will make it difficult for us to plan our own time. - It sounded during the F2F as if there is strong support for us to stick to the original time frames as best we can. That means we're due to start our assessment of the two received proposals together - which includes an evaluation of their compatibility and interoperability -- in a week and complete it in 5 weeks. Alissa On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:49 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 8.02.15 17:32 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
I think it is important because:
1. We in ICG demonstrate we use the same process for every group
2. We in ICG demonstrate we are moving forward with full speed ahead as much as we can given the two proposals we have
Now, the suggestion is as Alissa say that the OC get two weeks to at least say whether they need more time -- which of course would be reasonable to request (and for us to approve) given the current situation.
But the exception should be handled like an exception.
Patrik
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
Alissa, There is problem to act as you mentioned? However and however, once we received proposal from naming community, it is fundamental and crucial that one that proposal is properly evaluated by sufficient number of evaluators, we look at our previous works done for two others communities and to ensure that the three proposals FIT together as stipulated in section III of our charter before any thing is sent to NTIA Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Feb 2015, at 22:09, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I would say there are two additional reasons:
- In general I think whenever we ask for something from a community we should specify some time frame by which we expect to hear some response, even if that response is “we need more time.” Otherwise it will make it difficult for us to plan our own time.
- It sounded during the F2F as if there is strong support for us to stick to the original time frames as best we can. That means we’re due to start our assessment of the two received proposals together — which includes an evaluation of their compatibility and interoperability -- in a week and complete it in 5 weeks.
Alissa
On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:49 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 8.02.15 17:32 , Patrik Fältström wrote: I think it is important because:
1. We in ICG demonstrate we use the same process for every group
2. We in ICG demonstrate we are moving forward with full speed ahead as much as we can given the two proposals we have
Now, the suggestion is as Alissa say that the OC get two weeks to at least say whether they need more time -- which of course would be reasonable to request (and for us to approve) given the current situation.
But the exception should be handled like an exception.
Patrik
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
participants (12)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Jari Arkko -
Jennifer Chung -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Manal Ismail -
Mary Uduma -
Milton L Mueller -
Patrik Fältström -
Paul Wilson -
Russ Housley