Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, 6-7 February 2015

Hello All, The minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting (6-7 February 2015) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z5ytdn7szgpvnvd/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- february-2015.docx?dl=0 and https://www.dropbox.com/s/b2ailjn3iq446up/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day2-7- february-2015.docx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer

Here are my comments on the draft minutes: ----- DAY 1 5. "The ICG members expressed strong concerns about the jurisdictional issue of IETF MoU in relation to the interdependency between the operational communities. The ICG decided to further articulate any question to the operational community on the internal-cg mailing list and to discuss this topic further for the second day meeting." I do not recall that all ICG members expressed concerns and I also do not recall these as particular concerns, rather as questions. My recollection supports a wording like: "Some ICG members raised questions about the jurisdiction governing agreements in the IETF proposal. The ICG decided ....." ---- 6. "Wilson stated that the numbers proposal essentially reflects the consensus among the RIRs." I recollect Paul describing it in more detail which I consider relevant to minute. My recollection would support a wording like: "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open and transparent process." ... "Discussions among the ICG members clarified that the RIRs will not redesign the policy making process related to numbers but only to change the oversight process." could be further clarified like this: "Discussions among the ICG members clarified that the RIRs do not propose to change the way global Internet number policies are made. The RIR response is limited to the implementation of these policies." ---- DAY2 5. "Karrenberg spoke to the reasoning behind the second approach as he stated the possibility of the ICG receiving an influx of comments after the submission of the names proposal, and having a set procedure dealing with comments received on the icg-forum may negatively impact ICG’s process. He stated that the comments can be dealt with within ICG’s current process." what I intended to say is better represented by this language: "Karrenberg spoke to the reasoning behind the second approach. He said he was concerned about the reduced flexibility for the ICG and the high potential for abuse that any fixed procedure caused. He suggested that ICG use its existing process to deal with comments by taking note of all comments and deciding to ask specific questions to the communities based on comments we agree to be relevant while the operational communities remained free to act on any and all comments on their own initiative. He also noted that the procedure as written delegated inappropriate judgement calls to the secretariat."

Hi Daniel, Attached are the minutes to the Feb 6 and 7 F2F meetings with your edits incorporated. I have also included some additional detail to the description re the CRISP team (including links to the CRISP team website). We have included links in the minutes to the presentation and also the summary of the resolved questions. Version 2 of the minutes are also available on Dropbox at the links below: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4snk1orzmu64r0w/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- february-2015-v2.docx?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/sky0yufony4ypbc/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day2-7- february-2015-v2.docx?dl=0 Please let me know if there are further edits needed. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:24 AM To: Jennifer Chung; 'ICG' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, 6-7 February 2015 Here are my comments on the draft minutes: ----- DAY 1 5. "The ICG members expressed strong concerns about the jurisdictional issue of IETF MoU in relation to the interdependency between the operational communities. The ICG decided to further articulate any question to the operational community on the internal-cg mailing list and to discuss this topic further for the second day meeting." I do not recall that all ICG members expressed concerns and I also do not recall these as particular concerns, rather as questions. My recollection supports a wording like: "Some ICG members raised questions about the jurisdiction governing agreements in the IETF proposal. The ICG decided ....." ---- 6. "Wilson stated that the numbers proposal essentially reflects the consensus among the RIRs." I recollect Paul describing it in more detail which I consider relevant to minute. My recollection would support a wording like: "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open and transparent process." ... "Discussions among the ICG members clarified that the RIRs will not redesign the policy making process related to numbers but only to change the oversight process." could be further clarified like this: "Discussions among the ICG members clarified that the RIRs do not propose to change the way global Internet number policies are made. The RIR response is limited to the implementation of these policies." ---- DAY2 5. "Karrenberg spoke to the reasoning behind the second approach as he stated the possibility of the ICG receiving an influx of comments after the submission of the names proposal, and having a set procedure dealing with comments received on the icg-forum may negatively impact ICG's process. He stated that the comments can be dealt with within ICG's current process." what I intended to say is better represented by this language: "Karrenberg spoke to the reasoning behind the second approach. He said he was concerned about the reduced flexibility for the ICG and the high potential for abuse that any fixed procedure caused. He suggested that ICG use its existing process to deal with comments by taking note of all comments and deciding to ask specific questions to the communities based on comments we agree to be relevant while the operational communities remained free to act on any and all comments on their own initiative. He also noted that the procedure as written delegated inappropriate judgement calls to the secretariat."

-----Original Message----- I do not recall that all ICG members expressed concerns and I also do not recall these as particular concerns, rather as questions. My recollection supports a wording like:
"Some ICG members raised questions about the jurisdiction governing agreements in the IETF proposal. The ICG decided ....."
Agree that it was some members. To make it even more accurate, we should say "Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the MoU."
"Wilson stated that the numbers proposal essentially reflects the consensus among the RIRs."
I recollect Paul describing it in more detail which I consider relevant to minute. My recollection would support a wording like:
"Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open and transparent process."
I think the earlier statement was more accurate. The latter sounds a bit promotional and I think you are putting words in Paul's mouth.
could be further clarified like this:
"Discussions among the ICG members clarified that the RIRs do not propose to change the way global Internet number policies are made. The RIR response is limited to the implementation of these policies."
This is much better. More accurate regarding what was actually said.

Hi All, Attached is version 3 of the ICG F2F meeting #4 Day 1 minutes (Feb 6). There has been no further change to version 2 of the Day 2 minutes (Feb 7). The minutes are available on the Dropbox links below: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rg2eo5twnv8o5r2/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- february-2015-v3.docx?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/sky0yufony4ypbc/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day2-7- february-2015-v2.docx?dl=0 I have reflected Milton's edits with tracked changes to Daniel's edits. Please let me know if there are any additional edits needed/if I may accept the changes as such. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:29 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg; Jennifer Chung; 'ICG' Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, 6-7 February 2015
-----Original Message----- I do not recall that all ICG members expressed concerns and I also do not recall these as particular concerns, rather as questions. My recollection supports a wording like:
"Some ICG members raised questions about the jurisdiction governing agreements in the IETF proposal. The ICG decided ....."
Agree that it was some members. To make it even more accurate, we should say "Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the MoU."
"Wilson stated that the numbers proposal essentially reflects the consensus among the RIRs."
I recollect Paul describing it in more detail which I consider relevant to minute. My recollection would support a wording like:
"Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open and transparent process."
I think the earlier statement was more accurate. The latter sounds a bit promotional and I think you are putting words in Paul's mouth.
could be further clarified like this:
"Discussions among the ICG members clarified that the RIRs do not propose to change the way global Internet number policies are made. The RIR response is limited to the implementation of these policies."
This is much better. More accurate regarding what was actually said.
participants (3)
-
Daniel Karrenberg
-
Jennifer Chung
-
Milton L Mueller