Dear All .. Please find attached, and in dropbox, a draft FAQ we (Martin, Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa & myself) have prepared to be discussed on the upcoming call .. This is supposed to be a living document .. So the target is to come up with an initial agreed version rather than an exhaustive complete one .. Looking forward to receiving your feedback over email and/or during the call .. Kind Regards --Manal
Thank you Manal and others for the comprehensive good work done here. It might be useful to have FAQ on the independence of the ICG, I think stakeholders may wish to know how ICG's working methods and procedures fulfill the NTIA's requirements. e.g. having an independent secretariat/secretary other than ICANN staff. In addition, answer to question #5 sounds conclusive by the phrase "if at all needed" We can discuss further during the conference call and come up with a formulation to answer the questions. Mary Uduma On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:17 PM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote: Dear All .. Please find attached, and in dropbox, a draft FAQ we (Martin, Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa & myself) have prepared to be discussed on the upcoming call .. This is supposed to be a living document .. So the target is to come up with an initial agreed version rather than an exhaustive complete one .. Looking forward to receiving your feedback over email and/or during the call .. Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Many thanks Mary for your input .. In fact, while finalizing the draft, I have noticed that there was no mention of ICG secretariat in the FAQ but we did not want to delay circulating the document .. I think we can accommodate this, particularly that this is the only piece of ICG work that is not referenced in the FAQ .. Like you said, it would be very helpful if you assist with a formulation that would address this part .. I took note of your comment on Q#5 .. It's not my language so I'll leave it to the call .. Looking forward to discussing further on the call .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Mary Uduma [mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 1:36 AM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. Thank you Manal and others for the comprehensive good work done here. It might be useful to have FAQ on the independence of the ICG, I think stakeholders may wish to know how ICG's working methods and procedures fulfill the NTIA's requirements. e.g. having an independent secretariat/secretary other than ICANN staff. In addition, answer to question #5 sounds conclusive by the phrase "if at all needed" We can discuss further during the conference call and come up with a formulation to answer the questions. Mary Uduma On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:17 PM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote: Dear All .. Please find attached, and in dropbox, a draft FAQ we (Martin, Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa & myself) have prepared to be discussed on the upcoming call .. This is supposed to be a living document .. So the target is to come up with an initial agreed version rather than an exhaustive complete one .. Looking forward to receiving your feedback over email and/or during the call .. Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Manal et al Good start. I would propose the following modifications. Add a new question between #9 and #10, which I here label 9 ½ : 9 ½ Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not authorized to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in ICG's hands, and the general preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If you submit a proposal directly to the ICG without participating in the processes convened by the operational communities, all the ICG can do is forward that proposal to the relevant OCs. If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process. On Question 14, I found the answer not very meaningful. I would propose the following alternative language: ICG is closely following ICANN Accountability Process<https://community.icann.org/category/accountability>. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities, ICG will conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability. If there are gaps or problems, ICG will check to see whether these gaps are filled by the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. If they are not, ICG will return the proposals to the relevant operational community(ies) for amendment. On Question 15, "How is ICG reaching out?" I would delete the language "ICG members have participated in the IANA stewardship transition session<http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-iana-stewardship-transition> held at the ICANN 50 meeting in London, and If someone asks that question now they don't care what we did 3-4 months ago. They want to know what we are doing now. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. Dear All .. Please find attached, and in dropbox, a draft FAQ we (Martin, Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa & myself) have prepared to be discussed on the upcoming call .. This is supposed to be a living document .. So the target is to come up with an initial agreed version rather than an exhaustive complete one .. Looking forward to receiving your feedback over email and/or during the call .. Kind Regards --Manal
On 30.09.14 3:12 , Milton L Mueller wrote:
Manal et al
Good start.
I would propose the following modifications.
Add a new question between #9 and #10, which I here label 9 ½ :
*9 ½ Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? ***
You can, but the ICG is not authorized to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in ICG’s hands, and the general preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If you submit a proposal directly to the ICG without participating in the processes convened by the operational communities, all the ICG can do is forward that proposal to the relevant OCs. If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process.
On *Question 14*, I found the answer not very meaningful. I would propose the following alternative language:
ICG is closely following ICANN Accountability Process <https://community.icann.org/category/accountability>. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities, ICG will conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability. If there are gaps or problems, ICG will check to see whether these gaps are filled by the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. If they are not, ICG will return the proposals to the relevant operational community(ies) for amendment.
On *Question 15*, “How is ICG reaching out?” I would delete the language “ICG members have participated in the IANA stewardship transition session <http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-iana-stewardship-transition>held at the ICANN 50 meeting in London, and
If someone asks that question now they don’t care what we did 3-4 months ago. They want to know what we are doing now.
+1 on the suggestions Also eliminate passive forms as much as possible and look to eliminate expressing intentions where possible, e.g. change "ICG members are requested" into "ICG members will". Good work! Daniel
Many thanks Daniel .. I've changed "ICG members are also requested to reach out" into "ICG members are reaching out" .. Hope this is ok .. Will try to go through the document .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:00 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. On 30.09.14 3:12 , Milton L Mueller wrote:
Manal et al
Good start.
I would propose the following modifications.
Add a new question between #9 and #10, which I here label 9 ½ :
*9 ½ Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? ***
You can, but the ICG is not authorized to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in ICG's hands, and the general preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If you submit a proposal directly to the ICG without participating in the processes convened by the operational communities, all the ICG can do is forward that proposal to the relevant OCs. If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process.
On *Question 14*, I found the answer not very meaningful. I would propose the following alternative language:
ICG is closely following ICANN Accountability Process <https://community.icann.org/category/accountability>. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities, ICG will conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability. If there are gaps or problems, ICG will check to see whether these gaps are filled by the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. If they are not, ICG will return the proposals to the relevant operational community(ies) for amendment.
On *Question 15*, "How is ICG reaching out?" I would delete the language "ICG members have participated in the IANA stewardship transition session <http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-iana-stewardship-transition>held at the ICANN 50 meeting in London, and
If someone asks that question now they don't care what we did 3-4 months ago. They want to know what we are doing now.
+1 on the suggestions Also eliminate passive forms as much as possible and look to eliminate expressing intentions where possible, e.g. change "ICG members are requested" into "ICG members will". Good work! Daniel
Many thanks Milton .. Noted .. Further comments inline below .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:13 AM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: ICG FAQ .. Manal et al Good start. I would propose the following modifications. Add a new question between #9 and #10, which I here label 9 ½ : 9 ½ Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not authorized to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in ICG's hands, and the general preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If you submit a proposal directly to the ICG without participating in the processes convened by the operational communities, all the ICG can do is forward that proposal to the relevant OCs. If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process. [MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds .. On Question 14, I found the answer not very meaningful. I would propose the following alternative language: ICG is closely following ICANN Accountability Process <https://community.icann.org/category/accountability> . After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities, ICG will conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability. If there are gaps or problems, ICG will check to see whether these gaps are filled by the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. If they are not, ICG will return the proposals to the relevant operational community(ies) for amendment. [MI]: Happy to replace with your proposed language .. Looking forward to other reactions as this is one of the few questions we did not discuss thoroughly and have no agreed position on .. On Question 15, "How is ICG reaching out?" I would delete the language "ICG members have participated in the IANA stewardship transition session <http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-iana-stewardship-transition> held at the ICANN 50 meeting in London, and If someone asks that question now they don't care what we did 3-4 months ago. They want to know what we are doing now. [MI]: Noted .. although soon after, this will also become a past event. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. Dear All .. Please find attached, and in dropbox, a draft FAQ we (Martin, Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa & myself) have prepared to be discussed on the upcoming call .. This is supposed to be a living document .. So the target is to come up with an initial agreed version rather than an exhaustive complete one .. Looking forward to receiving your feedback over email and/or during the call .. Kind Regards --Manal
I agree with Manal's concern on the final sentence of Q9 1/2. Better might be to look at the level of support for the position and the way the community proposal addresses the issue. On Q14 is it worth adding after the first sentence that, "Operational communities have been asked to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals." For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric! In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc Sent from my iPhone On 30 Sep 2014, at 10:48, "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> wrote: Many thanks Milton .. Noted .. Further comments inline below .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:13 AM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: RE: ICG FAQ .. Manal et al Good start. I would propose the following modifications. Add a new question between #9 and #10, which I here label 9 ½ : 9 ½ Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not authorized to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in ICG’s hands, and the general preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If you submit a proposal directly to the ICG without participating in the processes convened by the operational communities, all the ICG can do is forward that proposal to the relevant OCs. If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process. [MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds .. On Question 14, I found the answer not very meaningful. I would propose the following alternative language: ICG is closely following ICANN Accountability Process<https://community.icann.org/category/accountability>. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities, ICG will conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability. If there are gaps or problems, ICG will check to see whether these gaps are filled by the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. If they are not, ICG will return the proposals to the relevant operational community(ies) for amendment. [MI]: Happy to replace with your proposed language .. Looking forward to other reactions as this is one of the few questions we did not discuss thoroughly and have no agreed position on .. On Question 15, “How is ICG reaching out?” I would delete the language “ICG members have participated in the IANA stewardship transition session<http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-iana-stewardship-transition> held at the ICANN 50 meeting in London, and If someone asks that question now they don’t care what we did 3-4 months ago. They want to know what we are doing now. [MI]: Noted .. although soon after, this will also become a past event. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. Dear All .. Please find attached, and in dropbox, a draft FAQ we (Martin, Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa & myself) have prepared to be discussed on the upcoming call .. This is supposed to be a living document .. So the target is to come up with an initial agreed version rather than an exhaustive complete one .. Looking forward to receiving your feedback over email and/or during the call .. Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Many thanks Martin .. I've noted your concern on Q9 1/2 and added the sentence you proposed to Q14's answer .. I have incorporated all comments, to my best, in the attached version and in Dropbox .. Hope this reflects accurately what has been suggested .. I'm not clear about the modifications you are suggesting for Q15 & Q16, so apologies for that .. I also recall that we, the drafting group, have agreed to share a clean version with ICG colleagues, so if you have comments pending from earlier drafting iterations appreciate adding them or letting me know .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:41 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. I agree with Manal's concern on the final sentence of Q9 1/2. Better might be to look at the level of support for the position and the way the community proposal addresses the issue. On Q14 is it worth adding after the first sentence that, "Operational communities have been asked to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals." For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric! In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc Sent from my iPhone On 30 Sep 2014, at 10:48, "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote: Many thanks Milton .. Noted .. Further comments inline below .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:13 AM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: ICG FAQ .. Manal et al Good start. I would propose the following modifications. Add a new question between #9 and #10, which I here label 9 ½ : 9 ½ Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not authorized to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in ICG's hands, and the general preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If you submit a proposal directly to the ICG without participating in the processes convened by the operational communities, all the ICG can do is forward that proposal to the relevant OCs. If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process. [MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds .. On Question 14, I found the answer not very meaningful. I would propose the following alternative language: ICG is closely following ICANN Accountability Process <https://community.icann.org/category/accountability> . After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities, ICG will conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability. If there are gaps or problems, ICG will check to see whether these gaps are filled by the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. If they are not, ICG will return the proposals to the relevant operational community(ies) for amendment. [MI]: Happy to replace with your proposed language .. Looking forward to other reactions as this is one of the few questions we did not discuss thoroughly and have no agreed position on .. On Question 15, "How is ICG reaching out?" I would delete the language "ICG members have participated in the IANA stewardship transition session <http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-iana-stewardship-transition> held at the ICANN 50 meeting in London, and If someone asks that question now they don't care what we did 3-4 months ago. They want to know what we are doing now. [MI]: Noted .. although soon after, this will also become a past event. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. Dear All .. Please find attached, and in dropbox, a draft FAQ we (Martin, Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa & myself) have prepared to be discussed on the upcoming call .. This is supposed to be a living document .. So the target is to come up with an initial agreed version rather than an exhaustive complete one .. Looking forward to receiving your feedback over email and/or during the call .. Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Manal Martin Further to my previous questions WHICH YET TO BE ASNWERED . I RAISE THE FOLLOWING AT PRESENT TIME " *2. Administrative Functions Associated with Root Management.* *A second important aspect* *of the IANA function involves administrative functions associated with management of the authoritative domain-name system (DNS) root**. Under the leadership of Dr. Postel, the IANA team undertook the project of delegating 243 of the country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) listed (except for grandfathered cases) on ISO 3166-1 (three more ccTLDs are still undelegated). These 243 ccTLDs, in conjunction with the seven generic top-level domains (gTLDs), and the special, legacy second-level domain, in-add.arpa, make up the root zone of the DNS that is disseminated to thirteen root name servers deployed throughout the world.* *Continuing maintenance of this root zone involves a variety of administrative functions that are key to maintaining the stable operation of the DNS. These tasks involve, first, maintenance of accurate records not only of the root-zone file information (i.e. correspondence of TLDs to host computers providing authoritative name service for those domains) but also of detailed contact information so that persons seeking second-level domains know who to contact and so that problems with a particular TLD can be quickly resolved. Routine requests for technical changes are made by the delegated operators of ccTLDs and the IANA/ICANN team has developed various means of verifying the authenticity of these requests based on its familiarity with the various operators. The IANA/ICANN team is experienced in working closely with Network Solutions, which currently generates the authoritative root-zone file and operates the root-zone Whois service, and with the U.S. Department of Commerce, which approves various changes to the root-zone file. ICANN proposes to continue processing routine requests for technical changes in the root-zone file and root-zone contact information in the same manner as is currently done, subject to changes in procedures agreed with the U.S. Department of Commerce Government consistent with ICANN's MOU with that agency.* *A second aspect* *of the administrative tasks associated with root management is receiving requests for redelegation of existing TLDs and, where new TLDs are created, for initial delegation. **After receiving the request**, the IANA investigates the circumstances of the request, evaluates its conformity with the relevant guidelines as contained in ICANN Corporate Policy (ICP-1), reports the results to the U.S. Department of Commerce, and if appropriate recommends a course of action on the request. Often a key stability-enhancing technique is the mediation of delegation disputes, which the ICANN staff has performed frequently, resulting in nearly all disputes being resolved by a consensual solution.* *At this stage in the U.S. Government's transition to private-sector-led technical management of the Internet, the U.S. Department of Commerce acts on delegation and redelegation requests by giving approval as appropriate to changes in root-zone files and associated information. **Nothing in the current contract contemplates any change in the IANA's role with respect to authorizing modifications, additions, or deletions to the root-zone file or associated information that constitute delegation or redelegation of top-level domains; **those issues are to be dealt with under the MOU between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce and past and future amendments to that MOU.* *Actions by the U.S. Department of Commerce on delegation and redelegation requests are made after reviewing reports submitted by the IANA, which makes the reliability of the reports especially vital. The ICANN team is uniquely situated to perform the investigation and reporting function based on its unequalled familiarity with ccTLD delegees worldwide, familiarity of precedents in prior delegation and redelegation situations, and longstanding reputation for handling requests impartially and in a manner that promotes the benefits of the Internet worldwide.* *A third aspect** of the administrative tasks associated with root management is coordination with the operators of the thirteen root nameservers deployed throughout the world. **ICANN is closely involved with the operation of the root nameservers**, **and this relationship will permit it to facilitate a stable transition from the current system of volunteer (but nonetheless highly professional) operation to a more accountable and formally documented system. ICANN itself operates one of the root nameservers ("L"), one of ICANN's nineteen directors (Jun Murai) is involved in the operation of another ("M"), and ICANN works closely with USC-ISI's staff, which operates another ("B"). In addition, ICANN's Root Server System Advisory Committee has as its members the operators of all thirteen root nameservers. ICANN proposes to work collaboratively through the Committee to develop a set of contracts between ICANN and each operator that will permit stable evolution and enhancement of the procedures under which the root nameserver system is operated" * *Questions * *After transition who and how and under what accountability terms the above tasks are envisaged to be done* *Regards* *KAVOUSS .* *'* 2014-09-30 13:15 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:
Many thanks Martin .. I've noted your concern on Q9 1/2 and added the sentence you proposed to Q14's answer .. I have incorporated all comments, to my best, in the attached version and in Dropbox .. Hope this reflects accurately what has been suggested ..
I'm not clear about the modifications you are suggesting for Q15 & Q16, so apologies for that ..
I also recall that we, the drafting group, have agreed to share a clean version with ICG colleagues, so if you have comments pending from earlier drafting iterations appreciate adding them or letting me know ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:41 PM *To:* Manal Ismail *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..
I agree with Manal's concern on the final sentence of Q9 1/2. Better might be to look at the level of support for the position and the way the community proposal addresses the issue.
On Q14 is it worth adding after the first sentence that, "Operational communities have been asked to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals."
For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric! In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Sep 2014, at 10:48, "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Many thanks Milton ..
Noted ..
Further comments inline below ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu <mueller@syr.edu>] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:13 AM *To:* Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: ICG FAQ ..
Manal et al
Good start.
I would propose the following modifications.
Add a new question between #9 and #10, which I here label 9 ½ :
*9 ½ Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? *
You can, but the ICG is not authorized to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in ICG’s hands, and the general preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If you submit a proposal directly to the ICG without participating in the processes convened by the operational communities, all the ICG can do is forward that proposal to the relevant OCs. If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process.
[MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds ..
On *Question 14*, I found the answer not very meaningful. I would propose the following alternative language:
ICG is closely following ICANN Accountability Process <https://community.icann.org/category/accountability>. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities, ICG will conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability. If there are gaps or problems, ICG will check to see whether these gaps are filled by the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. If they are not, ICG will return the proposals to the relevant operational community(ies) for amendment.
[MI]: Happy to replace with your proposed language .. Looking forward to other reactions as this is one of the few questions we did not discuss thoroughly and have no agreed position on ..
On *Question 15*, “How is ICG reaching out?” I would delete the language “ICG members have participated in the IANA stewardship transition session <http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-iana-stewardship-transition> held at the ICANN 50 meeting in London, and
If someone asks that question now they don’t care what we did 3-4 months ago. They want to know what we are doing now.
[MI]: Noted .. although soon after, this will also become a past event.
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Manal Ismail *Sent:* Monday, September 29, 2014 2:16 PM *To:* internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..
Dear All ..
Please find attached, and in dropbox, a draft FAQ we (Martin, Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa & myself) have prepared to be discussed on the upcoming call ..
This is supposed to be a living document .. So the target is to come up with an initial agreed version rather than an exhaustive complete one ..
Looking forward to receiving your feedback over email and/or during the call ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks to Manal and the drafting team for working on this. Couple of comments: Q13: Since the community processes are in fairly early stages, I find it a bit strange to ask how they can improved. I think it would make more sense to ask “What is required for the community processes to succeed by the target deadline?” And then the answer could begin with the part of the first sentence that says “All interested and affected parties …” Q14: I agree with Russ Housley here. I think the appropriate question here is "What is the relationship between the work of the ICG and the parallel process concerning ICANN accountability?” Developing an answer to that questions probably requires further discussion amongst the ICG members. Thanks, Alissa On Sep 30, 2014, at 4:15 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Many thanks Martin .. I've noted your concern on Q9 1/2 and added the sentence you proposed to Q14's answer .. I have incorporated all comments, to my best, in the attached version and in Dropbox .. Hope this reflects accurately what has been suggested .. I'm not clear about the modifications you are suggesting for Q15 & Q16, so apologies for that ..
I also recall that we, the drafting group, have agreed to share a clean version with ICG colleagues, so if you have comments pending from earlier drafting iterations appreciate adding them or letting me know ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:41 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..
I agree with Manal's concern on the final sentence of Q9 1/2. Better might be to look at the level of support for the position and the way the community proposal addresses the issue.
On Q14 is it worth adding after the first sentence that, "Operational communities have been asked to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals."
For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric! In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Sep 2014, at 10:48, "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Many thanks Milton .. Noted .. Further comments inline below ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:13 AM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: ICG FAQ ..
Manal et al
Good start.
I would propose the following modifications.
Add a new question between #9 and #10, which I here label 9 ½ :
9 ½ Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place?
You can, but the ICG is not authorized to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in ICG’s hands, and the general preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If you submit a proposal directly to the ICG without participating in the processes convened by the operational communities, all the ICG can do is forward that proposal to the relevant OCs. If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process.
[MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds ..
On Question 14, I found the answer not very meaningful. I would propose the following alternative language:
ICG is closely following ICANN Accountability Process. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities, ICG will conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability. If there are gaps or problems, ICG will check to see whether these gaps are filled by the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. If they are not, ICG will return the proposals to the relevant operational community(ies) for amendment.
[MI]: Happy to replace with your proposed language .. Looking forward to other reactions as this is one of the few questions we did not discuss thoroughly and have no agreed position on ..
On Question 15, “How is ICG reaching out?” I would delete the language “ICG members have participated in the IANA stewardship transition session held at the ICANN 50 meeting in London, and If someone asks that question now they don’t care what we did 3-4 months ago. They want to know what we are doing now.
[MI]: Noted .. although soon after, this will also become a past event.
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..
Dear All ..
Please find attached, and in dropbox, a draft FAQ we (Martin, Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa & myself) have prepared to be discussed on the upcoming call .. This is supposed to be a living document .. So the target is to come up with an initial agreed version rather than an exhaustive complete one ..
Looking forward to receiving your feedback over email and/or during the call ..
Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <ICG-FAQ-v1.doc>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] I agree with Manal's concern on the final sentence of Q9 1/2. Better might be to look at the level of support for the position and the way the community proposal addresses the issue. MM: How can we assess the level of support a proposal gets unless they participate in one of the community processes? I would submit that we cannot. How can a community proposal address an issue if the proposer never participated in its process? Let's not be naïve about this - time and again we have seen or heard comments indicating that many people still think of the proposal development process as submitting something independently to us and then we decide whether it is good or not. We need to drive home, very clearly, the point that if some group develops a proposal in their own little silo and sends it to us it is not likely to get anywhere. On Q14 is it worth adding after the first sentence that, "Operational communities have been asked to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals." MM: Agree For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric! In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc MM: It seems then that the "real" answer to this question is that the Operational communities themselves should play a major role in the outreach to relevant non-ICANN communities
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric! In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc MM: It seems then that the "real" answer to this question is that the Operational communities themselves should play a major role in the outreach to relevant non-ICANN communities MI: I fully agree .. and that's why I suggested to add "Inclusiveness/Outreach - check the level of inclusiveness and outreach of the provided process" to the criteria of individual proposals assessment, to make sure the Operational communities considers this seriously and play an active/proactive role in outreach ..
Manal Alissa,Patrik,mohamed Others I disagree with Patrik that I should draft questions for the points that I raised Alissia decided to assign the prepartion of FAQ to Manal and Martin AND THEN WE RECEIVED THE DRAFR PREPARED. Now I have made three rounds of questions .those who were assighned/ designated to prepare the draft of FAQ are kindly requested to put my points in the propoer questions usuing the style that was utilized before. I am awaiting for these very important questions to be answered Moreover ,pls clarify what do you mean by *" I do not disagree that the IANA Department at ICANN does more than the contract with NTIA describes. What the ICG is discussing is replacing the stewardship by NTIA for the IANA functions that the NTIA oversees. The functions that NTIA oversees are described in the contract and those are the only activities done by the IANA department that have oversight by NTIA. Any other, non-contractual activities of the IANA department which may be described in SAC-067 have no contractual relationship with NTIA and it stewardship"* * .* 1 Please advise what what are the actions that IANA Department at ICANN does more than the contract with NTIA : 2Please also describe what are the IANA functions that NTIA oversight ?Please cut and paste them from the contract as during the PUBLIC MEETING we could not refer to the contract as many people may not know that 3,After transition who will oversight those actions? 4. What are those other, non-contractual activities of the IANA department which may be described in SAC-067 have no contractual relationship with NTIA and it stewardship"? 5. After transition who will perform that : Regards Kavouss . 2014-09-30 19:36 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:
*From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
*From:* Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>]
For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric! In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc
MM: It seems then that the “real” answer to this question is that the Operational communities themselves should play a major role in the outreach to relevant non-ICANN communities
MI: I fully agree .. and that’s why I suggested to add “Inclusiveness/Outreach – check the level of inclusiveness and outreach of the provided process” to the criteria of individual proposals assessment, to make sure the Operational communities considers this seriously and play an active/proactive role in outreach ..
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Mr. Arasteh .. Allow me to re-iterate my reply to you regarding your very important questions .. “I believe the excellent points you raise below should be addressed through the proposals we are expecting to receive .. I do not think we should pre-empt what the community will ultimately reach and express views through this FAQ ..” In other words, those questions will be answered in the proposals submitted to the ICG .. Looking forward to receiving your reply to the above .. I’m sure there are ICG members more capable of replying to your points on IANA .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:20 PM To: Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper; Patrik Fältström; Mohamed El Bashir Cc: Milton L Mueller; Martin Boyle; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. Manal Alissa,Patrik,mohamed Others I disagree with Patrik that I should draft questions for the points that I raised Alissia decided to assign the prepartion of FAQ to Manal and Martin AND THEN WE RECEIVED THE DRAFR PREPARED. Now I have made three rounds of questions .those who were assighned/ designated to prepare the draft of FAQ are kindly requested to put my points in the propoer questions usuing the style that was utilized before. I am awaiting for these very important questions to be answered Moreover ,pls clarify what do you mean by " I do not disagree that the IANA Department at ICANN does more than the contract with NTIA describes. What the ICG is discussing is replacing the stewardship by NTIA for the IANA functions that the NTIA oversees. The functions that NTIA oversees are described in the contract and those are the only activities done by the IANA department that have oversight by NTIA. Any other, non-contractual activities of the IANA department which may be described in SAC-067 have no contractual relationship with NTIA and it stewardship" . 1 Please advise what what are the actions that IANA Department at ICANN does more than the contract with NTIA : 2Please also describe what are the IANA functions that NTIA oversight ?Please cut and paste them from the contract as during the PUBLIC MEETING we could not refer to the contract as many people may not know that 3,After transition who will oversight those actions? 4. What are those other, non-contractual activities of the IANA department which may be described in SAC-067 have no contractual relationship with NTIA and it stewardship"? 5. After transition who will perform that : Regards Kavouss . 2014-09-30 19:36 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric! In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc MM: It seems then that the “real” answer to this question is that the Operational communities themselves should play a major role in the outreach to relevant non-ICANN communities MI: I fully agree .. and that’s why I suggested to add “Inclusiveness/Outreach – check the level of inclusiveness and outreach of the provided process” to the criteria of individual proposals assessment, to make sure the Operational communities considers this seriously and play an active/proactive role in outreach .. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Manal and the other colleagues having prepared this draft. My comments: Q#2: “direct” and “indirect” stakeholders should be explained; maybe “direct stakeholders have an operational relationship to the IANA functions operator”. Q#91/2: I think this should be phrased more firm rather than discussing options the ICG might have or not (...all the ICG can do...). Agree with Manal that we shall express what we shall do rather than what we cannot. Q#14: here we definitely lock our timeline with the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. This could be a long lasting story. Will this serve as excuse for not meeting the deadline Sep 2015? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:33 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh ; Alissa Cooper ; Patrik Fältström ; Mohamed El Bashir Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. Dear Mr. Arasteh .. Allow me to re-iterate my reply to you regarding your very important questions .. “I believe the excellent points you raise below should be addressed through the proposals we are expecting to receive .. I do not think we should pre-empt what the community will ultimately reach and express views through this FAQ ..” In other words, those questions will be answered in the proposals submitted to the ICG .. Looking forward to receiving your reply to the above .. I’m sure there are ICG members more capable of replying to your points on IANA .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:20 PM To: Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper; Patrik Fältström; Mohamed El Bashir Cc: Milton L Mueller; Martin Boyle; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. Manal Alissa,Patrik,mohamed Others I disagree with Patrik that I should draft questions for the points that I raised Alissia decided to assign the prepartion of FAQ to Manal and Martin AND THEN WE RECEIVED THE DRAFR PREPARED. Now I have made three rounds of questions .those who were assighned/ designated to prepare the draft of FAQ are kindly requested to put my points in the propoer questions usuing the style that was utilized before. I am awaiting for these very important questions to be answered Moreover ,pls clarify what do you mean by " I do not disagree that the IANA Department at ICANN does more than the contract with NTIA describes. What the ICG is discussing is replacing the stewardship by NTIA for the IANA functions that the NTIA oversees. The functions that NTIA oversees are described in the contract and those are the only activities done by the IANA department that have oversight by NTIA. Any other, non-contractual activities of the IANA department which may be described in SAC-067 have no contractual relationship with NTIA and it stewardship" . 1 Please advise what what are the actions that IANA Department at ICANN does more than the contract with NTIA : 2Please also describe what are the IANA functions that NTIA oversight ?Please cut and paste them from the contract as during the PUBLIC MEETING we could not refer to the contract as many people may not know that 3,After transition who will oversight those actions? 4. What are those other, non-contractual activities of the IANA department which may be described in SAC-067 have no contractual relationship with NTIA and it stewardship"? 5. After transition who will perform that : Regards Kavouss . 2014-09-30 19:36 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric! In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc MM: It seems then that the “real” answer to this question is that the Operational communities themselves should play a major role in the outreach to relevant non-ICANN communities MI: I fully agree .. and that’s why I suggested to add “Inclusiveness/Outreach – check the level of inclusiveness and outreach of the provided process” to the criteria of individual proposals assessment, to make sure the Operational communities considers this seriously and play an active/proactive role in outreach .. _______________________________________________ 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 30 sep 2014, at 20:20, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I am awaiting for these very important questions to be answered
Kavouss, Part from what Manal wrote regarding the answers be up to the community to answer, we in the ICG need to write both questions and answers. If you then feel a question might be interesting for the community, please write both question and answer, and then ask ICG as a whole to have a say on whether they agree. Just like what Manal and Martin did. This is not you to ask questions that for example I am to answer. You suggest a question, and you suggest an answer. Others might agree that being a good pair to add to the FAQ, or they might find slight variations of it, or disagree it should be part of the FAQ. Regards, Patrik
Dear Mr. Arasteh, As you requested attached is a word document with a cut and paste of relevant sections of SA1301-SA-CN-0035. My apologies for the formatting as that is the way the cut and paste appears when copied from the document found at the URL below. The full statement of work can be found on the URL listed below. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and _sacs.pdf Regards, -- Elise From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 11:20 AM To: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net> Cc: Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..
2Please also describe what are the IANA functions that NTIA oversight ?Please cut and paste them from the contract as during the PUBLIC MEETING we could not refer to the contract as many people may not know that
Thank you Elise - actually here is a useful point from the document: "C.1.3 The Contractor, in the performance of its duties, must have or develop a close constructive working relationship with all interested and affected parties to ensure quality and satisfactory performance of the IANA functions. The interested and affected parties include, but are not limited to, the multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy development model for the domain name system (DNS) that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) represents; the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB); Regional Internet Registries (RIRs); top-level domain (TLD) operators/managers (e.g., country codes and generic); governments; and the Internet user community." By inference, there is a definition for 'multi-stakeholder'. Narelle From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2014 9:10 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Manal Ismail Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. Dear Mr. Arasteh, As you requested attached is a word document with a cut and paste of relevant sections of SA1301-SA-CN-0035. My apologies for the formatting as that is the way the cut and paste appears when copied from the document found at the URL below. The full statement of work can be found on the URL listed below. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and... Regards, -- Elise From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 11:20 AM To: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se<mailto:paf@frobbit.se>>, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net<mailto:mbashir@mbash.net>> Cc: Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ .. 2Please also describe what are the IANA functions that NTIA oversight ?Please cut and paste them from the contract as during the PUBLIC MEETING we could not refer to the contract as many people may not know that
From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg] [MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds .. :) Perhaps it does sound a bit negative, but I don't want people to get the (wrong) idea that they can short-circuit the process and appeal to us to get their ideas implemented. Can you think of a better way to phrase it? Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
I think our IANA definition is confusing. IANA is an acronym that should be included in the definmtion and then we should describe functions that fall under that work. I looked at some definitions from What Is and Wikipedia which i attach... On 9/30/2014 9:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
*From:* Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg]
[MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds ..
JPerhaps it does sound a bit negative, but I don't want people to get the (wrong) idea that they can short-circuit the process and appeal to us to get their ideas implemented. Can you think of a better way to phrase it?
Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I would go further, and suggest we should have working definitions for: The IANA Function The IANA Database The IANA Operator (or IANA Functions Operator) Cheers Keith On 1/10/2014 3:02 a.m., joseph alhadeff wrote:
I think our IANA definition is confusing. IANA is an acronym that should be included in the definmtion and then we should describe functions that fall under that work. I looked at some definitions from What Is and Wikipedia which i attach... On 9/30/2014 9:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
*From:* Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg]
[MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds ..
JPerhaps it does sound a bit negative, but I don’t want people to get the (wrong) idea that they can short-circuit the process and appeal to us to get their ideas implemented. Can you think of a better way to phrase it?
Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ 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 will suggest to describe all about IANA function (provide NTIA’s contract and other for “complete” information). Kuo Wu Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> 於 2014/10/1 9:13 寫道：
I would go further, and suggest we should have working definitions for:
The IANA Function The IANA Database The IANA Operator (or IANA Functions Operator)
Cheers
Keith
On 1/10/2014 3:02 a.m., joseph alhadeff wrote:
I think our IANA definition is confusing. IANA is an acronym that should be included in the definmtion and then we should describe functions that fall under that work. I looked at some definitions from What Is and Wikipedia which i attach... On 9/30/2014 9:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
*From:* Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg]
[MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds ..
JPerhaps it does sound a bit negative, but I don’t want people to get the (wrong) idea that they can short-circuit the process and appeal to us to get their ideas implemented. Can you think of a better way to phrase it?
Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ 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
In general, if people want questions and/or answers added to the FAQ, please do type and do send text. Not until people do so we can discuss whether it is to be added. Personally, I do not think we need to add definitions. It adds to the confusion. Specifically terms like "The IANA Database" that I honestly have no idea what it is. The important thing is for whoever is sending things *to* us makes clear what they mean with whatever terminology they use. Patrik On 1 okt 2014, at 06:01, Wu Kuo-Wei <kuoweiwu@gmail.com> wrote:
I will suggest to describe all about IANA function (provide NTIA’s contract and other for “complete” information).
Kuo Wu
Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> 於 2014/10/1 9:13 寫道：
I would go further, and suggest we should have working definitions for:
The IANA Function The IANA Database The IANA Operator (or IANA Functions Operator)
Cheers
Keith
On 1/10/2014 3:02 a.m., joseph alhadeff wrote:
I think our IANA definition is confusing. IANA is an acronym that should be included in the definmtion and then we should describe functions that fall under that work. I looked at some definitions from What Is and Wikipedia which i attach... On 9/30/2014 9:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
*From:* Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg]
[MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds ..
JPerhaps it does sound a bit negative, but I don’t want people to get the (wrong) idea that they can short-circuit the process and appeal to us to get their ideas implemented. Can you think of a better way to phrase it?
Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ 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 1 okt 2014, at 06:23, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Personally, I do not think we need to add definitions. It adds to the confusion.
My apologies for not being more clear... Reason for this is that we already have an agreed to text in the RFP we have submitted. As Milton said on the call, we should have simple answers to simple repeated questions. Regarding "what is IANA", maybe we should just remove the question? Patrik
A couple of pieces of feedback: Question 1 - I’d like to see the answer end with "The full role of the ICG is described in <charter link>.” (the link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf) Question 5 - s/if at all needed/if needed/ Jari
I hesitate to say that it is often best to point to an authoritative source for definitions, rather than come up with one's own. It may be safer and easier to do that here, ie point to a full definition elsewhere and have the shortest, most succinct version on our FAQ we can. Narelle
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2014 2:23 PM To: Wu Kuo-Wei Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..
In general, if people want questions and/or answers added to the FAQ, please do type and do send text. Not until people do so we can discuss whether it is to be added.
Personally, I do not think we need to add definitions. It adds to the confusion.
Specifically terms like "The IANA Database" that I honestly have no idea what it is.
The important thing is for whoever is sending things *to* us makes clear what they mean with whatever terminology they use.
Patrik
On 1 okt 2014, at 06:01, Wu Kuo-Wei <kuoweiwu@gmail.com> wrote:
I will suggest to describe all about IANA function (provide NTIA’s contract and other for “complete” information).
Kuo Wu
Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> 於 2014/10/1 9:13 寫道：
I would go further, and suggest we should have working definitions for:
The IANA Function The IANA Database The IANA Operator (or IANA Functions Operator)
Cheers
Keith
On 1/10/2014 3:02 a.m., joseph alhadeff wrote:
I think our IANA definition is confusing. IANA is an acronym that should be included in the definmtion and then we should describe functions that fall under that work. I looked at some definitions from What Is and Wikipedia which i attach... On 9/30/2014 9:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
*From:* Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg]
[MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds ..
JPerhaps it does sound a bit negative, but I don’t want people to get the (wrong) idea that they can short-circuit the process and appeal to us to get their ideas implemented. Can you think of a better way to phrase it?
Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ 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
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg] [MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds .. J Perhaps it does sound a bit negative, but I don't want people to get the (wrong) idea that they can short-circuit the process and appeal to us to get their ideas implemented. Can you think of a better way to phrase it? [MI]: J .. Does any of the following work? - "If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But, of course, this will be possible only if you have already participated in the relevant operational community-convened process." or - "If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But, of course, this won't be possible unless you have already participated in the relevant operational community-convened process. " Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html <http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html>
First one sounds good to me. If you want to avoid negativity, saying "this will be possible..." sounds better than "this won't be possible..." ;-) From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 1:19 PM To: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: ICG FAQ .. From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg] [MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds .. :) Perhaps it does sound a bit negative, but I don't want people to get the (wrong) idea that they can short-circuit the process and appeal to us to get their ideas implemented. Can you think of a better way to phrase it? [MI]: :) .. Does any of the following work? - "If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But, of course, this will be possible only if you have already participated in the relevant operational community-convened process." or - "If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But, of course, this won't be possible unless you have already participated in the relevant operational community-convened process. " Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
I have two concerns. Q4: I do not like defining IANA is this way. It makes it seem that IANA would not exist if not for the contract. Clearly, we want it to continue when the contract goes away, and some IANA functions are completely outside the contract. For example, the IANA role in the Timezone Database is completely outside the contract. I realize the definition includes "other" functions, but think we want to avoid using the contract as a means of defining IANA. Q14: If the ICANN community comes to consensus on a plan that includes accountability mechanisms, who is the ICG to "conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability?" I have a real problem saying that ICG will do this. The ICANN community needs to say whether the accountability mechanisms are sufficient, not the ICG. Making sure there are not gaps between the proposals is a different matter, but that is not what the current text says. Russ
On 9/30/14, 2:43 PM, "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
I have two concerns.
Q4: I do not like defining IANA is this way. It makes it seem that IANA would not exist if not for the contract. Clearly, we want it to continue when the contract goes away, and some IANA functions are completely outside the contract. For example, the IANA role in the Timezone Database is completely outside the contract. I realize the definition includes "other" functions, but think we want to avoid using the contract as a means of defining IANA.
Perhaps it would make more sense for Q4/A4 to be re-worded along the following lines: "Q4: Which aspects of IANA are to be covered in the stewardship transition? A4: The transition addresses the stewardship of IANA as the administrator of registries containing Internet protocol parameters, Internet numbering resources, and the DNS root zone. Activities unrelated to stewardship (for example, policy development processes) or unrelated to the aforementioned functions (for example, the administration of the Timezone Database) are not the focus of the transition.” Alissa
Q14: If the ICANN community comes to consensus on a plan that includes accountability mechanisms, who is the ICG to "conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability?" I have a real problem saying that ICG will do this. The ICANN community needs to say whether the accountability mechanisms are sufficient, not the ICG. Making sure there are not gaps between the proposals is a different matter, but that is not what the current text says.
Russ
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-----Original Message-----
Q14: If the ICANN community comes to consensus on a plan that includes accountability mechanisms, who is the ICG to "conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability?" I have a real problem saying that ICG will do this. The ICANN community needs to say whether the accountability mechanisms are sufficient, not the ICG.
Russ Your comments are based on a couple of misunderstandings. First, you're misunderstanding what was asserted. The accountability analysis will be of the *IANA stewardship proposals submitted by the 3 operational communities*, not of the results of the separate ICANN process. We will get responses to our RFP (hopefully) somewhere around January 15. I can guarantee you that the ICANN enhanced accountability process will NOT be anywhere near complete by that date. Therefore the accountability analysis ICG does will help to coordinate our efforts with the other ICANN process by telling them what gaps might need to be filled and what implications our proposed changes might have for overall accountability of ICANN. Recall that we are required by our charter to coordinate with them, and that the charter recognizes the interdependency of the two processes. Second, the statement made in the answer to Q 14 was already suggested in Istanbul, and was supported by all the other GNSO reps on the ICG, and not objected to by anyone else. This is probably because the ICANN community reps are all more attuned to the interdependency between the two processes than you may be, perhaps because they are involved in it. So when you ask "who is the ICG to "conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability?" I would reply, "who are you to tell us, the ICANN community reps on the ICG, that this isn't needed?" Our charter mandates this very clearly: "this group's scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract." This part of the charter REQUIRES us to assess the accountability aspects of the responses to the RFP. The charter also says "the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work." This REQUIRES us to issue a report or conduct some other activity which coordinates the accountability elements of both processes. Let me explain to you how complicated and delicate the interrelationship of these two processes is, because it's clear from your comments that you have no idea. There are stakeholder groups within the ICANN enhanced accountability process who want to completely alter ICANN's structure or enact other kinds of major reforms, and they will consider that a precondition for the IANA transition. There are people who believe that we need to fix every conceivable problem in ICANN before the transition takes place, because once it occurs we will never have any leverage over it. It is highly unlikely that many of these larger reforms could be agreed upon, much less enacted, by September 30, 2015. There is a very great likelihood that large numbers of people will object to ANY IANA transition plan coming out of the ICG unless they are satisfied with the results of the other ICANN accountability process. If we can show, via the ICG analysis I proposed, that certain key accountability relationships are addressed by the OC proposals, then stakes of the other enhanced accountability process might be lowered (or, of course, raised); if so, the wider ICANN reforms might be able to proceed at a more deliberate pace and not hold up the transition. Hope you understand this now. --MM
participants (16)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Elise Gerich -
Jari Arkko -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Keith Davidson -
Manal Ismail -
Martin Boyle -
Mary Uduma -
Milton L Mueller -
Narelle Clark -
Patrik Fältström -
Russ Housley -
Wu Kuo-Wei -
WUKnoben