Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52
FYI Begin forwarded message:
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 Date: February 6, 2015 at 2:34:58 AM PST To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Dear all, Please share this widely with your SO/Acs, we want to get as much distribution on the Discussion Document as possible.
To view the original message, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en.
CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 The CWG-Stewardship has created a Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore. The Discussion Document attempts to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the group during its deliberations in Singapore.
In engaging with the community, such as the group did during the Webinars on 3 February, the CWG-Stewardship hopes to leave the ICANN 52 in a significantly improved position in its mission develop a transition proposal.
The CWG-Stewardship looks forward to engaging with the community on the questions raised in the Discussion Document, particularly during the CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session on Thursday, 12 February at 10:30 – 11:45 SGT local time.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear colleagues, This is a very clear and useful document, and clearly captures all the great work of the CWG and the community. Very impressive and great progress. In reading this CWG Discussion document, it strikes me that it would be helpful to be more explicit when using the term "IANA functions" - here and likely elsewhere. There are many people following this process that are not so versed in the specifics and may assume this is talking about all the IANA functions. This confusion may or may not exist in the ICANN community (though I believe it does), and it definitely exists elsewhere. If qualifying the term "IANA functions" is not supported, could we ask the CWG to add a few introductory paragraphs outlining the multiple Operating Communities and the basic premise behind this transition process? Interested to see if others see the same potential for confusion, or if it just me. Best, Lynn On Feb 6, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 Date: February 6, 2015 at 2:34:58 AM PST To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Dear all, Please share this widely with your SO/Acs, we want to get as much distribution on the Discussion Document as possible.
To view the original message, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en.
CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52
The CWG-Stewardship has created a Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore. The Discussion Document attempts to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the group during its deliberations in Singapore.
In engaging with the community, such as the group did during the Webinars on 3 February, the CWG-Stewardship hopes to leave the ICANN 52 in a significantly improved position in its mission develop a transition proposal.
The CWG-Stewardship looks forward to engaging with the community on the questions raised in the Discussion Document, particularly during the CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session on Thursday, 12 February at 10:30 – 11:45 SGT local time.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Lynn, thanks for this. At some discussion yesterday evening it became once again clear to me that people not really into this discussion (like we are) understand what the issue is, not even on 30k feet level. So I agree with you that (not even) ICANN people do understand what this is about. From my perspective, we have a situation today where DoC do have a contract with ICANN that covers "the IANA functions". This contract is not to be extended. When this contract is going away, the question to each one of the operational communities is "what must be done, if anything at all, given this contract does not exist any longer". We all know that the functions the IANA Function at ICANN do is not the same set of functions that the contract covers, and many of the functions (in either of the two sets) might not require any action at all, while others do. So, in this context, what is "the IANA functions"? Mumble... I think "the IANA functions" in this context is "the set of functions covered by the contract between DoC and ICANN related to the IANA Functions". I.e. not(!) the set of functions the IANA group at ICANN is performing. Patrik
On 7 feb 2015, at 08:09, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
This is a very clear and useful document, and clearly captures all the great work of the CWG and the community. Very impressive and great progress.
In reading this CWG Discussion document, it strikes me that it would be helpful to be more explicit when using the term "IANA functions" - here and likely elsewhere. There are many people following this process that are not so versed in the specifics and may assume this is talking about all the IANA functions. This confusion may or may not exist in the ICANN community (though I believe it does), and it definitely exists elsewhere.
If qualifying the term "IANA functions" is not supported, could we ask the CWG to add a few introductory paragraphs outlining the multiple Operating Communities and the basic premise behind this transition process?
Interested to see if others see the same potential for confusion, or if it just me.
Best, Lynn
On Feb 6, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 Date: February 6, 2015 at 2:34:58 AM PST To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Dear all, Please share this widely with your SO/Acs, we want to get as much distribution on the Discussion Document as possible.
To view the original message, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en.
CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52
The CWG-Stewardship has created a Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore. The Discussion Document attempts to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the group during its deliberations in Singapore.
In engaging with the community, such as the group did during the Webinars on 3 February, the CWG-Stewardship hopes to leave the ICANN 52 in a significantly improved position in its mission develop a transition proposal.
The CWG-Stewardship looks forward to engaging with the community on the questions raised in the Discussion Document, particularly during the CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session on Thursday, 12 February at 10:30 – 11:45 SGT local time.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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 Patrik, I agree with all you said below. At the same time I wonder if it would be helpful to clarify the IANA functions that are being addressed in the CWG document specifically. I know there are many outside this community (and again probably in the community as well) that will think the "IANA functions" references includes parameters and numbers… Lynn On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Lynn, thanks for this.
At some discussion yesterday evening it became once again clear to me that people not really into this discussion (like we are) understand what the issue is, not even on 30k feet level. So I agree with you that (not even) ICANN people do understand what this is about.
From my perspective, we have a situation today where DoC do have a contract with ICANN that covers "the IANA functions". This contract is not to be extended. When this contract is going away, the question to each one of the operational communities is "what must be done, if anything at all, given this contract does not exist any longer".
We all know that the functions the IANA Function at ICANN do is not the same set of functions that the contract covers, and many of the functions (in either of the two sets) might not require any action at all, while others do.
So, in this context, what is "the IANA functions"?
Mumble...
I think "the IANA functions" in this context is "the set of functions covered by the contract between DoC and ICANN related to the IANA Functions".
I.e. not(!) the set of functions the IANA group at ICANN is performing.
Patrik
On 7 feb 2015, at 08:09, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
This is a very clear and useful document, and clearly captures all the great work of the CWG and the community. Very impressive and great progress.
In reading this CWG Discussion document, it strikes me that it would be helpful to be more explicit when using the term "IANA functions" - here and likely elsewhere. There are many people following this process that are not so versed in the specifics and may assume this is talking about all the IANA functions. This confusion may or may not exist in the ICANN community (though I believe it does), and it definitely exists elsewhere.
If qualifying the term "IANA functions" is not supported, could we ask the CWG to add a few introductory paragraphs outlining the multiple Operating Communities and the basic premise behind this transition process?
Interested to see if others see the same potential for confusion, or if it just me.
Best, Lynn
On Feb 6, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 Date: February 6, 2015 at 2:34:58 AM PST To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Dear all, Please share this widely with your SO/Acs, we want to get as much distribution on the Discussion Document as possible.
To view the original message, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en.
CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52
The CWG-Stewardship has created a Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore. The Discussion Document attempts to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the group during its deliberations in Singapore.
In engaging with the community, such as the group did during the Webinars on 3 February, the CWG-Stewardship hopes to leave the ICANN 52 in a significantly improved position in its mission develop a transition proposal.
The CWG-Stewardship looks forward to engaging with the community on the questions raised in the Discussion Document, particularly during the CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session on Thursday, 12 February at 10:30 – 11:45 SGT local time.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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
Lynn, Let me try to understand what cation you requests. Do you suggest that I (for example) as co-chair of the ICG reach out to the CWG [staff] and suggest a clarification in their documents on what they do mean with "IANA Function"? Or do you suggest I even should propose "We in ICG do view IANA Functions in the context of the IANA Stewardship Transition is what is covered in the contract between ICANN and DoC, and expect each one of the operational communities (where you are one) look at the portion of the IANA Functions covered by the contract that the operational community is responsible for"? Or? Patrik
On 7 feb 2015, at 10:48, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:
Thanks Patrik,
I agree with all you said below.
At the same time I wonder if it would be helpful to clarify the IANA functions that are being addressed in the CWG document specifically. I know there are many outside this community (and again probably in the community as well) that will think the "IANA functions" references includes parameters and numbers…
Lynn
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Lynn, thanks for this.
At some discussion yesterday evening it became once again clear to me that people not really into this discussion (like we are) understand what the issue is, not even on 30k feet level. So I agree with you that (not even) ICANN people do understand what this is about.
From my perspective, we have a situation today where DoC do have a contract with ICANN that covers "the IANA functions". This contract is not to be extended. When this contract is going away, the question to each one of the operational communities is "what must be done, if anything at all, given this contract does not exist any longer".
We all know that the functions the IANA Function at ICANN do is not the same set of functions that the contract covers, and many of the functions (in either of the two sets) might not require any action at all, while others do.
So, in this context, what is "the IANA functions"?
Mumble...
I think "the IANA functions" in this context is "the set of functions covered by the contract between DoC and ICANN related to the IANA Functions".
I.e. not(!) the set of functions the IANA group at ICANN is performing.
Patrik
On 7 feb 2015, at 08:09, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
This is a very clear and useful document, and clearly captures all the great work of the CWG and the community. Very impressive and great progress.
In reading this CWG Discussion document, it strikes me that it would be helpful to be more explicit when using the term "IANA functions" - here and likely elsewhere. There are many people following this process that are not so versed in the specifics and may assume this is talking about all the IANA functions. This confusion may or may not exist in the ICANN community (though I believe it does), and it definitely exists elsewhere.
If qualifying the term "IANA functions" is not supported, could we ask the CWG to add a few introductory paragraphs outlining the multiple Operating Communities and the basic premise behind this transition process?
Interested to see if others see the same potential for confusion, or if it just me.
Best, Lynn
On Feb 6, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 Date: February 6, 2015 at 2:34:58 AM PST To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Dear all, Please share this widely with your SO/Acs, we want to get as much distribution on the Discussion Document as possible.
To view the original message, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en.
CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52
The CWG-Stewardship has created a Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore. The Discussion Document attempts to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the group during its deliberations in Singapore.
In engaging with the community, such as the group did during the Webinars on 3 February, the CWG-Stewardship hopes to leave the ICANN 52 in a significantly improved position in its mission develop a transition proposal.
The CWG-Stewardship looks forward to engaging with the community on the questions raised in the Discussion Document, particularly during the CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session on Thursday, 12 February at 10:30 – 11:45 SGT local time.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, On Feb 6, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Lynn,
Let me try to understand what cation you requests.
Do you suggest that I (for example) as co-chair of the ICG reach out to the CWG [staff] and suggest a clarification in their documents on what they do mean with "IANA Function"?
I think this would be helpful (and this is mainly what I was referring to as Names gets the most attention), but maybe I am alone in seeing the potential for confusion. If I am alone, then we should probably do nothing. Again, I am thinking more about those outside this Internet Governance community, and it seems a great opportunity to drive some clarity about the 3 OC's and their roles. And, frankly, I am tired of reading articles that conflate the IANA functions and then tend to tie them all together in one bundle.
Or do you suggest I even should propose "We in ICG do view IANA Functions in the context of the IANA Stewardship Transition is what is covered in the contract between ICANN and DoC, and expect each one of the operational communities (where you are one) look at the portion of the IANA Functions covered by the contract that the operational community is responsible for"?
No, I don't think this is necessary. What was meant to be covered in this transition was made pretty clear by the NTIA and then subsequently, I think, by the ICG and the OC's, no? Lynn
Or?
Patrik
On 7 feb 2015, at 10:48, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:
Thanks Patrik,
I agree with all you said below.
At the same time I wonder if it would be helpful to clarify the IANA functions that are being addressed in the CWG document specifically. I know there are many outside this community (and again probably in the community as well) that will think the "IANA functions" references includes parameters and numbers…
Lynn
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Lynn, thanks for this.
At some discussion yesterday evening it became once again clear to me that people not really into this discussion (like we are) understand what the issue is, not even on 30k feet level. So I agree with you that (not even) ICANN people do understand what this is about.
From my perspective, we have a situation today where DoC do have a contract with ICANN that covers "the IANA functions". This contract is not to be extended. When this contract is going away, the question to each one of the operational communities is "what must be done, if anything at all, given this contract does not exist any longer".
We all know that the functions the IANA Function at ICANN do is not the same set of functions that the contract covers, and many of the functions (in either of the two sets) might not require any action at all, while others do.
So, in this context, what is "the IANA functions"?
Mumble...
I think "the IANA functions" in this context is "the set of functions covered by the contract between DoC and ICANN related to the IANA Functions".
I.e. not(!) the set of functions the IANA group at ICANN is performing.
Patrik
On 7 feb 2015, at 08:09, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
This is a very clear and useful document, and clearly captures all the great work of the CWG and the community. Very impressive and great progress.
In reading this CWG Discussion document, it strikes me that it would be helpful to be more explicit when using the term "IANA functions" - here and likely elsewhere. There are many people following this process that are not so versed in the specifics and may assume this is talking about all the IANA functions. This confusion may or may not exist in the ICANN community (though I believe it does), and it definitely exists elsewhere.
If qualifying the term "IANA functions" is not supported, could we ask the CWG to add a few introductory paragraphs outlining the multiple Operating Communities and the basic premise behind this transition process?
Interested to see if others see the same potential for confusion, or if it just me.
Best, Lynn
On Feb 6, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 Date: February 6, 2015 at 2:34:58 AM PST To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Dear all, Please share this widely with your SO/Acs, we want to get as much distribution on the Discussion Document as possible.
To view the original message, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en.
CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52
The CWG-Stewardship has created a Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore. The Discussion Document attempts to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the group during its deliberations in Singapore.
In engaging with the community, such as the group did during the Webinars on 3 February, the CWG-Stewardship hopes to leave the ICANN 52 in a significantly improved position in its mission develop a transition proposal.
The CWG-Stewardship looks forward to engaging with the community on the questions raised in the Discussion Document, particularly during the CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session on Thursday, 12 February at 10:30 – 11:45 SGT local time.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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 7 feb 2015, at 13:00, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Lynn,
Let me try to understand what cation you requests.
Do you suggest that I (for example) as co-chair of the ICG reach out to the CWG [staff] and suggest a clarification in their documents on what they do mean with "IANA Function"?
I think this would be helpful (and this is mainly what I was referring to as Names gets the most attention), but maybe I am alone in seeing the potential for confusion. If I am alone, then we should probably do nothing. Again, I am thinking more about those outside this Internet Governance community, and it seems a great opportunity to drive some clarity about the 3 OC's and their roles. And, frankly, I am tired of reading articles that conflate the IANA functions and then tend to tie them all together in one bundle.
If no one objects, I will pass this message to the CWG. Patrik
participants (3)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Lynn St.Amour -
Patrik Fältström