June 2015 - lac-discuss-en - lists.icann.org

? = Utf-8 q SSAC-071_sobre_transici = C3 = B3n_y_CCWG =
by apisanty＠gmail.com June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject:? = Utf-8 q SSAC-071_sobre_transici = C3 = B3n_y_CCWG = From: apisanty(a)gmail.com Hello, in https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-071-en.pdf (Advisory Committee on Safety and Stability) of ICANN said: "The SSAC is concerned about the way the new model of membership proposed may affect the way the SSAC operates, considering their narrow focus on issues of security and stability and resistance It is involved in matters outside this space. SSAC expects the community to adopt an organizational structure that recognizes the role and importance of expert opinion on security and stability ". This document payable to the concerns we have expressed Vanda Scartezini and me. I reiterate my request to Alberto and Humberto starting a formal process to form and express an official opinion of LACRALO to respect. Greetings, Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM Faculty of Chemistry 3000 University Avenue,. 04510 Mexico DF Mexico + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD SMS FROM MEXICO +525541444475 +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty UNAM Join the LinkedIn group, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/43b5954f00.html --]]

1 0

Suggestions for Showcase
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Suggestions for Showcase From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Dear, at the meeting today several things were determined. For those unable to be in the same, I would like to make the following summary: 1. For those who participate in person: do not forget the dresses Traditional each country. For example, I vestirde gaucho of the pampas and Carlos Aguirre of a typical man of tango. 2. The last date for sending of videos of each ALS is on 12 June 23: 00UTC. An recibninguno no no tendrcostos The compilation, I got Free sponsor. 3. An estdeterminado not whether we can move music without paying royalties copyright. We hope Sergio Salinas Porto response. But just in case, I suggest to my email enven several songs of your country. In Actually, it should be traditional music, which no longer estprotegida by copyright.In the case of Argentina, for example, estel called National Pericn. Please MP3 format. This also up June 12 at 23:00 UTC 4. deliver a gift to the current CEO of ICANN to be the last ICANN meeting which participate in our region. For that enven we need my email (not listed), several songs consider tpicas of your respective countries. Serarmado an album of Latinoamrica and music of the Caribbean, and delivered on a stick, with some ms. Please MP3 format. This serreproducido not for profit, therefore we will not consider copyright. On this occasion, There were suggestions of delivering the current CEO of ICANN a present of each country who are Buenos Aires, small, only the respective indicatorio nationality. This latter is entirely voluntary. 5. As we got two additional sponsors (LACNIC and Google Inc.) we will be able to improve a little catering and deliver other gifts.Everything is delivered in recepcino as a gift, Sern WICHIS indigenous artisans of, people of Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil. He entregarjunto with souvenir, a summary of the Wichis and on the wood with which estn built, this in English and Spanish. We recommend the sending of the requested music videos and I pray. Have made great efforts so that all our estn organizations represented, and will be very bad for not We receive the collaboration of the same, not estn represented. It is a right of each ALS be represented, but also one obligation. Best regards Alberto Soto --- Avast antivirus software has analyzed this e-mail for viruses. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2a3bb5c131.html --]]

1 0

Traducciones al español y portugués
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

Queridos amigos, En seguimiento a mi correo en el que anunciaba la extensión del plazo para la recepción de comentarios en idiomas diferentes al inglés, adjunto las versiones en español, portugués y francés de la propuesta inicial para la mejora de la rendición de cuentas de ICANN preparada por el CCWG. La fecha límite para la recepción de comentarios es el día 12 de junio. Como lo han mencionado algunos compañeros, hay puntos sobre los que vale mucho la pena comentar. Dejo algunos puntos que espero detonen la discusión y puedan conducir a la elaboración de un documento con la posición de LACRALO. 1.- Modelo de membresía para ICANN 2.- Panel de revisión independiente (IRP) 3.- Poderes de la comunidad En espera de que esta información sea útil para la elaboración de comentarios, quedo pendiente de cualquier duda o comentario que puedan tener sobre el tema. Saludos, León

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] ??? Q = iso-8859-1 F3n_Showcase-_hoy_a_las_23 Reuni = _ = = iso-8859-1 UTC q =?????
by silvia.vivanco＠icann.org June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re:??? Q = iso-8859-1 F3n_Showcase-_hoy_a_las_23 Reuni = _ = = iso-8859-1 UTC q =????? From: silvia.vivanco(a)icann.org Dear Alberto, Correction, in 42 minutes at 23 UTC. Thank you very much! Silvia From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alberto Soto Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 5:18 PM To: 'LACRALO Spanish' Subject: [lac-discuss-en] meeting Showcase Importance: High Dear, at 2300 UTC (4 minutes) will start the last meeting before our Showcase in Buenos Aires, it is please ask if they have time available to participate. Thank you very much and best regards Alberto Soto For other times: http://tinyurl.com/ovnrakn The draft schedule (to be updated) and call details are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/xpU0Aw Adobe Connect: I http://icann.adobeconnect.com/lacralo Conference ID: IN 1638 EN 1738 Wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/xgonAw ________________________________ [Avast logo] < https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Avast antivirus software has analyzed this e-mail for viruses. www.avast.com < https://www.avast.com/antivirus> [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/53f80ed6d6.html --]]

1 0

= iso-8859-1 Reuni q = F3n_Showcase =????
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: = iso-8859-1 Reuni q = F3n_Showcase =???? From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Dear, at 2300 UTC (4 minutes) will start the last meeting before our Showcase in Buenos Aires, is ask please if you have time available to participate. Thank you very much and best regards Alberto Soto For other times: <http://tinyurl.com/ovnrakn> http://tinyurl.com/ovnrakn The draft schedule (to be updated) and call details are available at: < https://community.icann.org/x/xpU0Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/xpU0Aw Adobe Connect: <http://icann.adobeconnect.com/lacralo> I http://icann.adobeconnect.com/lacralo Conference ID: IN 1638 EN 1738 Wiki workspace: < https://community.icann.org/x/xgonAw> https://community.icann.org/x/xgonAw --- Avast antivirus software has analyzed this e-mail for viruses. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/3a7f3588f5.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] RV: Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June
by vanda＠uol.com.br June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: RV: Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June From: vanda(a)uol.com.br I agree fully with the comments of Alex. There is de facto a possibility of fragmentation. David is very valid observations psotando which we must take into consideration. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, June 8, 2015 at 12:36 To: Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> Cc: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June Alberto, thank you for sharing this message exchange. As well you sealas, the issue is very especfico and extremely discussion Detailed. However, especially with the response of John Curran, the which is addressed it is the largest scale and importance. Our community must be prepared to intervene at regional and global level. 1. It is essential to counter all the efforts of the RIRs that leading to fragment ICANN, particularly through the fragmentation of IANA. While professing lack of that intention, the signing of an agreement or separate commercial contract for the numeraciny resources desproporcin payments between numbers and drive names that direction. 2. The reason David Conrad attends most of his observations. Already Yours is complex to establish an SLA (service-level agreement) with a conventional commercial service provider defines the market. Reduce a contract of this type the function of "stewardship" of ICANN and IANA created the most possible contraproducemtes incentives. I hope other organizations manifest and express propose two aquexpuestos points as a consensus position of LACRALO, for which I ask the Presidency and the Secretariat institute formal processes corresponding. Alejandro Pisanty On Mon, June 8, 2015 at 9:16 a.m., Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: > Estimados, aquí la respuesta de John Curran, CEO de ARIN, a David Conrard. > Saludos cordiales > > Alberto Soto > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: ianaxfer-bounces(a)nro.net [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces@nro.net] En nombre de > John Curran > Enviado el: lunes, 08 de junio de 2015 08:04 a.m. > Para: David Conrad > CC: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > Asunto: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Numbering Services Draft SLA, still open for > comment until 14 June > > On Jun 7, 2015, at 11:51 PM, David Conrad <drc(a)virtualized.org> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I have been hesitant to provide comments on the draft SLA due to my current >> role within ICANN: for those that do not know, I am ICANN's CTO and am >> responsible for the technical implementation of the transition of the >> stewardship of the IANA Functions to the global multistakeholder community. >> However, a number of people (not directly associated with ICANN) have asked >> me to provide my input WITHOUT my ICANN hat on, and instead as someone who >> helped set up APNIC, was an ARIN Board member for 5 years, had a very small >> role in helping to set up AfriNIC, who ran IANA from 2005 to 2010, and who >> has been doing registry stuff in one way or another for way longer than I >> care to admit. >> > >> > Perhaps this can be a lesson in being careful what you ask for... >> > >> > While I can assert the following input is, in fact, (a) purely my own, (b) >> is in no way representing ICANN's view, and (c) has not been coordinated with >> ICANN staff or board (I did mention I was planning on posting something in my >> own name), I am aware some will believe my input is subject to conflict of >> interest. My apologies in advance if you are among these people. > > David - > > Thanks for these comments - I have no doubt that they will lead to an > improved SLA as a result. > >> > I will also apologize in advance if some of the comments below appear a bit >> harsh. This is not intended, however I believe due to time constraints, it is >> better to be clear and direct. > > Along that spirit, I am going to refrain from responding to the vast > majority > of the comments (as the community is likely to have ample comments), but > but will comment on three areas which relate to the overall assumptions for > the IANA Stewardship transition process at a high-level. > >> > ... >> > In addition, the "SLA" appears to be entirely one-sided, ignoring the >> reality that management of numbers is a cooperative effort done by the IANA >> numbering function operator, the RIRs, LIRs, and end users, for the benefit >> of the Internet community as a whole. > > Agreed. > >> > As such, I believe a useful SLA must clearly define the _mutual_ roles and >> responsibilities of both parties, along with a very clear escalation path >> should a party not live up to their responsibilities. The current document >> does not do this. > > I believe that the roles and responsibilities of the parties must be > defined, but that > doesn¹t necessarily have to be (or even should be) in a single document. > The rather > colorful structure and evolution of ICANN has resulted in it having > multiple roles, and > yet these roles are not strictly dependent on each other. For example, if > the ICANN > IANA team were to experience extremely and chronic performance issues in > the > administration of the IANA number registries (the opposite of the excellent > performance > provided to date), then there could be a circumstances where the numbers > community > would need (via the RIRs as their representative) to contract for an > alternative IANA > numbers registry operator. The SLA should be suitable for that > arrangement (even > though ICANN would not longer be performing the IANA numbers registry > function.) > > However, in my personal opinion, such a change should not in any way change > the > RIRs collectively operating under ICANN¹s overall Internet identifier > coordination role; > i.e. the community should still submit global policies to ICANN for > ratification, the ASO > MOU should remain in effect, the RIR community should participate in > accountability > and transparency reviews (ATRT) as part of the ICANN system, etc. ICANN > serves > as an important role external to the Internet numbers community that > improves overall > accountability and transparency, and helps in broad outreach to the global > Internet > community. > > So, I think we¹re in agreement that role and responsibilities should be > clearly defined, > but it is not clear that it should be done in a single document since there > are multiple > relationships: 1) RIRs/NRO serving as the global Address Supporting > Organization > within ICANN, with its incumbent obligations, and 2) ICANN serving as the > IANA > numbers service operator for numbering community as represented by the > RIRs. > >> > 5.2: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum amount the RIRs shall >> reimburse the Operator pursuant to Article 5.1 above shall be One Hundred >> Dollars ($100.00) unless otherwise agreed to in writing by all Parties." >> > >> > Um, what? So the RIRs are only obligated to pay a maximum of $500 total? >> This makes no sense to me, particularly given 5.1. I guess this is some sort >> of legal incantation that makes sense to lawyers. > > Actually, I believe it is $100 _in total_ under the present language Is > there a value > that makes more sense - i.e. what do you believe the full costs of > providing ³the > extremely limited activity² of the IANA numbering function? I personally > believe that > it is in the community's interest for this value be an accurate estimate of > such costs, > and the present ICANN ASO contribution should be reduced by the same amount > once established. In this manner, if the worst-cast were to happen and > another > party had to perform IANA services, then the RIRs would have budgeted at > least a > meaningful amount for this purpose, and while ICANN would lose this amount, > it > would correspond with a similar reduction in the level of effort in their > IANA team. > >> > 12.1.1: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, title >> and interest in and to such intellectual property rights to the RIRs, their >> successors, assigns and designees." >> > >> > I don't think it makes sense to assign (say) intellectual property held by >> the Operator on behalf of (say) the naming community exclusively to the RIRs. >> > >> > 12.1.2: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, title, >> and interest in and to such data rights to the RIRs, their successors, >> assigns and designees." >> > >> > Similar comment as above. >> > >> > 12.3: "the Operator may be provided the use of intellectual property or >> rights over data through a license from the RIRs or the IETF Trust (the ³IP >> Assets²)." >> > >> > This is backwards. ICANN currently owns the rights to that intellectual >> property. > > It would be nice if we could all come to agreement that the rights to the > community's > intellectual property related to these activities (including any data > rights, trademark, > domain names, etc.) should be held by an entity which was actually set up > for such > a purpose, had no operational role, would make appropriate licenses > available to all > parties that had a role in IANA operations, etc. Last I checked, the IETF > Trust met > all of these criteria (whereas neither ICANN nor the RIRs do) One can > imagine > some rather extreme worse-case scenarios involving transitions where it > would be > very helpful it we could all rely on the intellectual property being made > available to > whomever needed it to perform the functions, and not otherwise caught in > transition. > > Thanks again for the comments! > /John > > Disclaimer: The remarks above are my own as CEO of ARIN. While I believe > them to > be fully compatible with the organization's positions on > these matters to > date, neither the ARIN Board nor ARIN community has > discussed David¹s > comments and developed specific positions on these topics > at this time. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > > > --- > El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca > de virus. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM Faculty of Chemistry 3000 University Avenue,. 04510 Mexico DF Mexico + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD SMS FROM MEXICO +525541444475 +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty UNAM Join the LinkedIn group, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _______________________________________________ Lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/45eb749d30.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] RV: Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June
by apisan＠unam.mx June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: RV: Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June From: apisan(a)unam.mx Alberto, thanks for this note. That same experience with SLAs should indicate us that the relationship between two contracting parties can not be reduced to the SLA. The SLA is a derivative of "major" contract between the parties; although vital, no longer an appendix. Therefore I think we should insist on LACRALO a great deal, as it exists today to support Unified IANA. The proposed RIR not enough money or keys to the door of the office. They assume that IANA operates, interest paid by the domain name, and aim to provide a few pennies a month for the services they receive. Unit costs of some of these services may be low but the very existence of the service is based on a much larger and msslida organizacinms. So it is easy to express the threat RIRs seek an alternative supplier and split to IANA irreversibly. It is unrealistic and very harmful. Our representation in all working groups must oppose. Formally agree that we ratify our mandate to the request I made to you and Humberto to start a consultation process. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM Faculty of Chemistry 3000 University Avenue,. 04510 Mexico DF Mexico + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD SMS FROM MEXICO +525541444475 +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty UNAM Join the LinkedIn group, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Alberto Soto [asoto(a)ibero-americano.org] Posted on: Monday, June 8, 2015 11:58 To: 'Alejandro Pisanty' CC: 'LACRALO Spanish' Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June Alejandro agree. Particularly agrees with David in an SLA should contain everything you need and be drafted as clearly as possible. I have written some SLA as a lawyer and also I have endured as informtico some of them, in a very large multinational group. Thanks to these collaborations Best regards Alberto Soto From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto: apisanty(a)gmail.com] Posted on: Monday, June 8, 2015 24:36 To: Alberto Soto CC: LACRALO Spanish Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June Alberto, thank you for sharing this message exchange. As well you sealas, the issue is very especfico and detailed discussion on end. However, especially with the response of John Curran, the issue of dealing is the largest scale and importance. Our community must be prepared to intervene at regional and global level. 1. It is essential to counter all efforts leading to fragment RIRs ICANN, particularly through the fragmentation of IANA. While professing lack of that intention, the signing of a separate commercial agreement or contract for the desproporcin numeraciny resources payments between numbers and drive names that direction. 2. The reason David Conrad attends most of his observations. And is itself complex to establish an SLA (service-level agreement) with a conventional commercial service provider defines the market. Reduce to a contract of this type the function of "stewardship" of ICANN and IANA creates more incentives contraproducemtes possible. I hope other organizations intend to manifest and express the two aquexpuestos points as a consensus position of LACRALO, for which I ask the Presidency and the Secretariat institute the appropriate formal processes. Alejandro Pisanty On Mon, June 8, 2015 at 9:16 a.m., Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> > Wrote: Dear, aqula response John Curran, CEO of ARIN, David Conrard. Best regards Alberto Soto ----- Original Message ----- From: ianaxfer-bounces(a)nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer-bounces@nro.net> [Mailto: ianaxfer-bounces(a)nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer-bounces@nro.net> ] On behalf of John Curran Posted on: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:04 a.m. To: David Conrad CC: ianaxfer(a)nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer@nro.net> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June On June 7, 2015, at 11:51 PM, David Conrad <drc(a)virtualized.org<mailto:drc@virtualized.org> > Wrote: > > Hi, > > I have been hesitant to provide comments on the draft SLA due to my current role within ICANN: for those that do not know, I am ICANN's CTO and am responsible for the technical implementation of the transition of the stewardship of the IANA Functions to the global multistakeholder community. However, a number of people (not directly associated with ICANN) have asked me to provide my input WITHOUT my ICANN hat on, and instead as someone who helped set up APNIC, was an ARIN Board member for 5 years, had a very small role in helping to set up AfriNIC, who ran IANA from 2005 to 2010, and who has been doing registry stuff in one way or another for way longer than I care to admit. > > Perhaps this can be a lesson in being careful what you ask for... > > While I can assert the following input is, in fact, (a) purely my own, (b) is in no way representing ICANN's view, and (c) has not been coordinated with ICANN staff or board (I did mention I was planning on posting something in my own name), I am aware some will believe my input is subject to conflict of interest. My apologies in advance if you are among these people. Thanks for These comments - I have no doubt That They will lead to an SLA improved as a result. > I will also apologize in advance if some of the comments below appear a bit harsh. This is not intended, however I believe due to time constraints, it is better to be clear and direct. of the comments (as the community is likely To have ample comments), but but will comment on three areas Which relate to the overall assumptions for the IANA Stewardship transition process at a high-level. > ... > In addition, the "SLA" appears to be entirely one-sided, ignoring the reality that management of numbers is a cooperative effort done by the IANA numbering function operator, the RIRs, LIRs, and end users, for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole. > As such, I believe a useful SLA must clearly define the _mutual_ roles and responsibilities of both parties, along with a very clear escalation path should a party not live up to their responsibilities. The current document does not do this. doesnt Necessarily Have to be (or even Should be) in a single document. The rather colorful structure and evolution of ICANN has Resulted in it having multiple roles, and These roles are not yet strictly dependent on each other.For example, if the ICANN Were IANA team to experience extremely and chronic performance issues in the administration of the IANA number registries (the opposite of the excellent performance provided to date), Then There Could be a community Circumstances Where the numbers would need (via the RIRs as Their representative) to an alternative contract for IANA registry operator numbers. The SLA Should be suitable for That arrangement (even though ICANN would not longer be performing the IANA registry numbers function.) However, in my personal opinion, shouldnt Such a change in any way change the RIRs collectively operating under ICANNs Internet identifier overall coordination role; Should the community ie still submit comprehensive policies to ICANN for ratification, the ASO MOU Should Remain in effect, the RIR community Should Participate in accountability and transparency reviews (ATRT) as part of the ICANN system, etc.ICANN Serves Important role as an external to the Internet community That Improves overall numbers accountability and transparency, and Helps in broad outreach to the global Internet community. So, I think in agreement That Were role and Responsibilities Should be Clearly defined, but it is not clear That it Should be done in a single document since there are multiple relationships: 1) RIR / NRO serving as the Global Address Supporting Organization Within ICANN Obligations With its incumbent, and 2) serving as ICANN the IANA numbers for numbering service operator community as Represented by the RIRs. > 5.2: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum amount the RIRs shall reimburse the Operator pursuant to Article 5.1 above shall be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) unless otherwise agreed to in writing by all Parties." > > Um, what? So the RIRs are only obligated to pay a maximum of $500 total? This makes no sense to me, particularly given 5.1. I guess this is some sort of legal incantation that makes sense to lawyers. That Makes more sense - ie what do you believe the full costs of providing the extremely limited activity of the IANA numbering function? I personally believe That it is in the community's interest for this value be an accurate estimate of Such costs, ICANN ASO and the present contribution Should be reduced by the same amount established eleven o'clock.In This manner, if the worst-cast Were to happen and another HAD party to perform services IANA, the RIRs then a budgeted at Least Would Have to meaningful amount for th purpose, and while ICANN would Lose This amount, it would like Correspond with a reduction in the level of effort in Their IANA team. > 12.1.1: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, title and interest in and to such intellectual property rights to the RIRs, their successors, assigns and designees." > > I don't think it makes sense to assign (say) intellectual property held by the Operator on behalf of (say) the naming community exclusively to the RIRs. > > 12.1.2: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, title, and interest in and to such data rights to the RIRs, their successors, assigns and designees." > > Similar comment as above. > > 12.3: "the Operator may be provided the use of intellectual property or rights over data through a license from the RIRs or the IETF Trust (the IP Assets)." > > This is backwards. ICANN currently owns the rights to that intellectual property. These related to intellectual property activities (including any data rights, trademark, domain names, etc.) Should be held by an entity Which was whos Such set-up for a purpose, Had no operational role, would make available to all Appropriate licenses That parties had a role in IANA operations, etc. Last I checked, the IETF Trust met all of These criteria (Whereas neither ICANN nor the RIRs do) One can imagine some rather extreme worse-case scenarios transitions Involving Where it would be Could it very helpful we all rely on the intellectual property Being made available to whomever needed it to perform the functions, and Not Otherwise caught in transition. Thanks again for the comments! / John Disclaimer: The above remarks are my own as CEO of ARIN. While I believe them to be fully Compatible with the organization's positions on These matters to date, neither the Board nor ARIN ARIN community has Discussed Davids comments and developed specific positions on These topics at This Time. _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/55b0c42ec1.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] RV: Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: RV: Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Alejandro agree. Particularly agrees with David in an SLA should contain everything you need and be drafted as clearly as possible. I have written some SLA as a lawyer and I have also supported some of them as a computer, on a very large multinational group. Thanks to these collaborations Best regards Alberto Soto From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto: apisanty(a)gmail.com] Posted on: Monday, June 8, 2015 24:36 To: Alberto Soto CC: LACRALO Spanish Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June Alberto, thank you for sharing this message exchange. As you well point out, the issue is very specific and detailed discussion end. However, especially with the response of John Curran, the issue of dealing is the largest scale and importance. Our community must be prepared to intervene at regional and global level. 1. It is essential to counter all efforts leading to fragment RIRs ICANN, particularly through the fragmentation of IANA. While professing lack of that intention, the signing of a separate agreement or commercial contract to numbering resources and the imbalance in payments between numbers and drive names that direction. 2. The reason David Conrad attends most of his observations. And is itself complex to establish an SLA (service-level agreement) with a conventional commercial service provider defines the market.Reduce to a contract of this type function "stewardship" of ICANN and IANA make possible more contraproducemtes incentives. I hope other organizations intend to manifest and express the two points here presented as a consensus position of LACRALO, for which requested the Chair and Secretariat corresponding institute formal processes. Alejandro Pisanty On Mon, June 8, 2015 at 9:16 a.m., Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> > Wrote: Dear, here the answer of John Curran, CEO of ARIN, David Conrard. Best regards Alberto Soto ----- Original Message ----- From: ianaxfer-bounces(a)nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer-bounces@nro.net> [Mailto: ianaxfer-bounces(a)nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer-bounces@nro.net> ] On behalf of John Curran Posted on: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:04 a.m. To: David Conrad CC: ianaxfer(a)nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer@nro.net> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June On June 7, 2015, at 11:51 PM, David Conrad <drc(a)virtualized.org <mailto:drc@virtualized.org> > Wrote: > > Hi, > > I have been hesitant to provide comments on the draft SLA due to my current role within ICANN: for those that do not know, I am ICANN's CTO and am responsible for the technical implementation of the transition of the stewardship of the IANA Functions to the global multistakeholder community. However, a number of people (not directly associated with ICANN) have asked me to provide my input WITHOUT my ICANN hat on, and instead as someone who helped set up APNIC, was an ARIN Board member for 5 years, had a very small role in helping to set up AfriNIC, who ran IANA from 2005 to 2010, and who has been doing registry stuff in one way or another for way longer than I care to admit. > > Perhaps this can be a lesson in being careful what you ask for... > > While I can assert the following input is, in fact, (a) purely my own, (b) is in no way representing ICANN's view, and (c) has not been coordinated with ICANN staff or board (I did mention I was planning on posting something in my own name), I am aware some will believe my input is subject to conflict of interest. My apologies in advance if you are among these people. Thanks for These comments - I have no doubt That They will lead to an SLA improved as a result. > I will also apologize in advance if some of the comments below appear a bit harsh. This is not intended, however I believe due to time constraints, it is better to be clear and direct. of the comments (as the community is likely To have ample comments), but but will comment on three areas Which relate to the overall assumptions for the IANA Stewardship transition process at a high-level. > ... > In addition, the "SLA" appears to be entirely one-sided, ignoring the reality that management of numbers is a cooperative effort done by the IANA numbering function operator, the RIRs, LIRs, and end users, for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole. > As such, I believe a useful SLA must clearly define the _mutual_ roles and responsibilities of both parties, along with a very clear escalation path should a party not live up to their responsibilities. The current document does not do this. Does not Necessarily Have to be (or even Should be) in a single document. The rather colorful structure and evolution of ICANN has Resulted in it having multiple roles, and These roles are not yet strictly dependent on each other.For example, if the ICANN Were IANA team to experience extremely and chronic performance issues in the administration of the IANA number registries (the opposite of the excellent performance provided to date), Then There Could be a community Circumstances Where the numbers would need (via the RIRs as Their representative) to an alternative contract for IANA registry operator numbers. The SLA Should be suitable for That arrangement (even though ICANN would not longer be performing the IANA registry numbers function.) However, in my personal opinion, shouldnt Such a change in any way change the RIRs collectively operating under ICANN's overall coordination role Internet identifier; Should the community ie still submit comprehensive policies to ICANN for ratification, the ASO MOU Should Remain in effect, the RIR community Should Participate in accountability and transparency reviews (ATRT) as part of the ICANN system, etc.ICANN Serves Important role as an external to the Internet community That Improves overall numbers accountability and transparency, and Helps in broad outreach to the global Internet community. So, I think we're in agreement That role and Responsibilities Should be Clearly defined, but it is not clear That it Should be done in a single document since there are multiple relationships: 1) RIR / NRO serving as the Global Address Supporting Organization Within ICANN Obligations With its incumbent, and 2) serving as ICANN the IANA numbers for numbering service operator community as Represented by the RIRs. > 5.2: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum amount the RIRs shall reimburse the Operator pursuant to Article 5.1 above shall be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) unless otherwise agreed to in writing by all Parties." > > Um, what? So the RIRs are only obligated to pay a maximum of $500 total? This makes no sense to me, particularly given 5.1. I guess this is some sort of legal incantation that makes sense to lawyers. That Makes more sense - ie what do you believe the full costs of providing "the extremely limited activity "of the IANA numbering function? I personally believe That it is in the community's interest for this value be an accurate estimate of Such costs, ICANN ASO and the present contribution Should be reduced by the same amount established eleven o'clock.In This manner, if the worst-cast Were to happen and another HAD party to perform services IANA, the RIRs then a budgeted at Least Would Have to meaningful amount for th purpose, and while ICANN would Lose This amount, it would like Correspond with a reduction in the level of effort in Their IANA team. > 12.1.1: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, title and interest in and to such intellectual property rights to the RIRs, their successors, assigns and designees." > > I don't think it makes sense to assign (say) intellectual property held by the Operator on behalf of (say) the naming community exclusively to the RIRs. > > 12.1.2: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, title, and interest in and to such data rights to the RIRs, their successors, assigns and designees." > > Similar comment as above. > > 12.3: "the Operator may be provided the use of intellectual property or rights over data through a license from the RIRs or the IETF Trust (the “IP Assets”)." > > This is backwards. ICANN currently owns the rights to that intellectual property. These related to intellectual property activities (including any data rights, trademark, domain names, etc.) Should be held by an entity Which was whos Such set-up for a purpose, Had no operational role, would make available to all Appropriate licenses That parties had a role in IANA operations, etc. Last I checked, the IETF Trust met all of These criteria (Whereas neither ICANN nor the RIRs do) One can imagine some rather extreme worse-case scenarios transitions Involving Where it would be Could it very helpful we all rely on the intellectual property Being made available to whomever needed it to perform the functions, and Not Otherwise caught in transition. Thanks again for the comments! / John Disclaimer: The above remarks are my own as CEO of ARIN. While I believe them to be fully Compatible with the organization's positions on These matters to date, neither the Board nor ARIN ARIN community has Discussed David's comments and developed specific positions on These topics at This Time. _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/911b20b705.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] RV: Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June
by apisanty＠gmail.com June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: RV: Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June From: apisanty(a)gmail.com Alberto, thank you for sharing this message exchange. As you well point out, the issue is very specific and extremely discussion Detailed. However, especially with the response of John Curran, the which is addressed it is the largest scale and importance. Our community must be prepared to intervene at regional and global level. 1. It is essential to counter all the efforts of the RIRs that leading to fragment ICANN, particularly through fragmentation IANA. While professing lack of that intention, the signing of a separate commercial agreement or contract for numbering resources and payments imbalance between numbers and drive names that direction. 2. The reason David Conrad attends most of his observations. And is itself complex to establish an SLA (service-level agreement) with a conventional commercial service provider defines the market. Reduce to a contract of this type function "stewardship" of ICANN and IANA make possible more contraproducemtes incentives. I hope other organizations manifest and express propose two points shown here as a consensus position of LACRALO, for which requested the Chair and the Secretariat instituted processes corresponding formal. Alejandro Pisanty On Mon, June 8, 2015 at 9:16 a.m., Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: > Estimados, aquí la respuesta de John Curran, CEO de ARIN, a David Conrard. > Saludos cordiales > > Alberto Soto > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: ianaxfer-bounces(a)nro.net [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces@nro.net] En nombre > de John Curran > Enviado el: lunes, 08 de junio de 2015 08:04 a.m. > Para: David Conrad > CC: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > Asunto: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Numbering Services Draft SLA, still open for > comment until 14 June > > On Jun 7, 2015, at 11:51 PM, David Conrad <drc(a)virtualized.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have been hesitant to provide comments on the draft SLA due to my > current role within ICANN: for those that do not know, I am ICANN's CTO and > am responsible for the technical implementation of the transition of the > stewardship of the IANA Functions to the global multistakeholder > community. However, a number of people (not directly associated with > ICANN) have asked me to provide my input WITHOUT my ICANN hat on, and > instead as someone who helped set up APNIC, was an ARIN Board member for 5 > years, had a very small role in helping to set up AfriNIC, who ran IANA > from 2005 to 2010, and who has been doing registry stuff in one way or > another for way longer than I care to admit. > > > > Perhaps this can be a lesson in being careful what you ask for... > > > > While I can assert the following input is, in fact, (a) purely my own, > (b) is in no way representing ICANN's view, and (c) has not been > coordinated with ICANN staff or board (I did mention I was planning on > posting something in my own name), I am aware some will believe my input is > subject to conflict of interest. My apologies in advance if you are among > these people. > > David - > > Thanks for these comments - I have no doubt that they will lead to an > improved SLA as a result. > > > I will also apologize in advance if some of the comments below appear a > bit harsh. This is not intended, however I believe due to time constraints, > it is better to be clear and direct. > > Along that spirit, I am going to refrain from responding to the vast > majority > of the comments (as the community is likely to have ample comments), but > but will comment on three areas which relate to the overall assumptions > for > the IANA Stewardship transition process at a high-level. > > > ... > > In addition, the "SLA" appears to be entirely one-sided, ignoring the > reality that management of numbers is a cooperative effort done by the IANA > numbering function operator, the RIRs, LIRs, and end users, for the benefit > of the Internet community as a whole. > > Agreed. > > > As such, I believe a useful SLA must clearly define the _mutual_ roles > and responsibilities of both parties, along with a very clear escalation > path should a party not live up to their responsibilities. The current > document does not do this. > > I believe that the roles and responsibilities of the parties must be > defined, but that > doesn’t necessarily have to be (or even should be) in a single > document. The rather > colorful structure and evolution of ICANN has resulted in it having > multiple roles, and > yet these roles are not strictly dependent on each other. For > example, if the ICANN > IANA team were to experience extremely and chronic performance issues > in the > administration of the IANA number registries (the opposite of the > excellent performance > provided to date), then there could be a circumstances where the > numbers community > would need (via the RIRs as their representative) to contract for an > alternative IANA > numbers registry operator. The SLA should be suitable for that > arrangement (even > though ICANN would not longer be performing the IANA numbers registry > function.) > > However, in my personal opinion, such a change should not in any way > change the > RIRs collectively operating under ICANN’s overall Internet identifier > coordination role; > i.e. the community should still submit global policies to ICANN for > ratification, the ASO > MOU should remain in effect, the RIR community should participate in > accountability > and transparency reviews (ATRT) as part of the ICANN system, etc. > ICANN serves > as an important role external to the Internet numbers community that > improves overall > accountability and transparency, and helps in broad outreach to the > global Internet > community. > > So, I think we’re in agreement that role and responsibilities should be > clearly defined, > but it is not clear that it should be done in a single document since > there are multiple > relationships: 1) RIRs/NRO serving as the global Address Supporting > Organization > within ICANN, with its incumbent obligations, and 2) ICANN serving as > the IANA > numbers service operator for numbering community as represented by the > RIRs. > > > 5.2: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum amount the RIRs shall > reimburse the Operator pursuant to Article 5.1 above shall be One Hundred > Dollars ($100.00) unless otherwise agreed to in writing by all Parties." > > > > Um, what? So the RIRs are only obligated to pay a maximum of $500 > total? This makes no sense to me, particularly given 5.1. I guess this is > some sort of legal incantation that makes sense to lawyers. > > Actually, I believe it is $100 _in total_ under the present language… > Is there a value > that makes more sense - i.e. what do you believe the full costs of > providing “the > extremely limited activity” of the IANA numbering function? I > personally believe that > it is in the community's interest for this value be an accurate > estimate of such costs, > and the present ICANN ASO contribution should be reduced by the same > amount > once established. In this manner, if the worst-cast were to happen > and another > party had to perform IANA services, then the RIRs would have budgeted > at least a > meaningful amount for this purpose, and while ICANN would lose this > amount, it > would correspond with a similar reduction in the level of effort in > their IANA team. > > > 12.1.1: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, > title and interest in and to such intellectual property rights to the RIRs, > their successors, assigns and designees." > > > > I don't think it makes sense to assign (say) intellectual property held > by the Operator on behalf of (say) the naming community exclusively to the > RIRs. > > > > 12.1.2: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, > title, and interest in and to such data rights to the RIRs, their > successors, assigns and designees." > > > > Similar comment as above. > > > > 12.3: "the Operator may be provided the use of intellectual property or > rights over data through a license from the RIRs or the IETF Trust (the “IP > Assets”)." > > > > This is backwards. ICANN currently owns the rights to that intellectual > property. > > It would be nice if we could all come to agreement that the rights to > the community's > intellectual property related to these activities (including any data > rights, trademark, > domain names, etc.) should be held by an entity which was actually set > up for such > a purpose, had no operational role, would make appropriate licenses > available to all > parties that had a role in IANA operations, etc. Last I checked, the > IETF Trust met > all of these criteria (whereas neither ICANN nor the RIRs do) One can > imagine > some rather extreme worse-case scenarios involving transitions where it > would be > very helpful it we could all rely on the intellectual property being > made available to > whomever needed it to perform the functions, and not otherwise caught > in transition. > > Thanks again for the comments! > /John > > Disclaimer: The remarks above are my own as CEO of ARIN. While I believe > them to > be fully compatible with the organization's positions > on these matters to > date, neither the ARIN Board nor ARIN community has > discussed David’s > comments and developed specific positions on these > topics at this time. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > > > --- > El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en > busca de virus. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM Faculty of Chemistry Av.University 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD SMS FROM MEXICO +525541444475 +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty UNAM Join the LinkedIn group, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/683b888115.html --]]

1 0

Fwd: Thoughts Requested on ICANN CEO Criteria
by Carlton Samuels June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

It looks like we were going for the super woman/man! But the attributes/skills I highlighted come up tops for importance, IMHO. And we can even do another triage to find the really really important ones. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:29 PM Subject: [ALAC] Thoughts Requested on ICANN CEO Criteria To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear ALAC and RALO Chairs, I am very much looking forward to seeing you and other At-Large community members again at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. *Important Topic Alert* The Board is interested in your input to help us refine the selection criteria for the next ICANN CEO. - On Sunday June 21st, there will be an ALAC/At-Large session with me, which will focus on the CEO Search and Criteria. - On Thursday June 25th, there will be a Board Session on the CEO Succession Process right before the Public Forum where your input would be invaluable. *Key Questions:* What characteristics and skills would you like to see in the future ICANN CEO? As no one person will meet all the desired criteria, which criteria are most important? What distribution of characteristics and skills would you like to see? I request that members of the ALAC and the At-Large spare some time thinking about and discussing this important topic. If RALO Chairs could facilitate discussions at the regional level leading up to Buenos Aires, that would be extremely helpful to feed into the discussions in Buenos Aires. As a reference and trigger for your thoughts and discussion, below is the CEO Profile from the 2011 CEO Search materials. I look forward to your input. Best regards, Rinalia *CEO Profile [from CEO Search in 2011*] Candidates will be expected to demonstrate to the highest degree possible the following experience and skills. These have been grouped under 4 headings that embody the multi-faceted nature of the role: *Professional* § Solid record of either/or public, corporate, academic service, at a high international level § Global exposure: experience of working in different countries or with different cultures § Experience in managing process work flows and ability to anticipate issues § Close familiarity with the ways in which civil society, business sector interests and regulatory authorities interact § Success in managing ICANN’s evolution as an organization, complex issues and programs, and key contracts § Track record of achieving results, not just ‘being there’ § Previous association with highly respected organizations § Leadership of dispersed international teams and active multi-stakeholders that provide policy input *Personal* § Consensus builder and catalyst, a motivator and persuader § Intellectually engaging, contributes to ‘thought leadership’ in helping define vision and strategy, and leverages the organization’s competencies § Combines weight of personality with empathy towards others of many different backgrounds § Practiced at exercising influence in non-hierarchical relationships § Earns respect and generates trust in him/herself and the organization § Multicultural with language skills, practiced communicator and public speaker § Aligns with ICANN's values: integrity, trust, humility, technical excellence and public service § Able negotiator, without making enemies, can represent ICANN and can present it well § Strong affinity with the Internet (but not just a “cheerleader”), conscious of its role and complexity, fully embraces ICANN’s mission and its bottom-up process § Embodies and practices the multi-stakeholder approach and welcomes significant volunteer involvement *Technical* § Internet architecture knowledge : understanding of the global Internet’s systems of unique identifiers, including domain names, protocol parameters and addresses § Institutional knowledge : familiarity with the functioning of registries and registrars, ICANN’s policy development procedures and user categories § Understanding of the domain names market structure and dynamics, including competition issues *The Internet Governance Ecosystem* § Institutions: understand the environment of those involved in the Internet and its administrative governance systems, notably IETF, ISOC, W3C, and other standard bodies (ETSI, ITU, ISO, Unicode) § International awareness: know the government stakeholders in Internet governance and how to interact with them § Knowledge of the UN system and other international organizations and processes § Ability to function and generate trust with all actors through operational excellence and respect for input from the multistakeholder base END _______________________________________________

1 0