<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>I have no problem to consider the proposed cut and pase from RFC ,if it helps,</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-10-02 17:31 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se" target="_blank">paf@frobbit.se</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The key thing we felt was missing in the discussions so far is that for each registry there is already a given OC that has requested it, and because of that is in charge. To explain this without talking about history we felt was extremely difficult.<br>
<br>
It is definitely not the case that an OC that require a registry "must" have it managed by the IANA Function at ICANN. What is discussed is what parameters and judgement OCs use when they make a decision on where to host a registry, and the fact they do (and always have) counted cooperation and collaboration as important parameters for that decision.<br>
<br>
This was why we felt history was needed. As an explanation.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Patrik<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 2 Oct 2015, at 18:17, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
<br>
> I would agree with Wolf-U that you'd need a lot more specifics in the paragraph about the web of relationships, I would go further and say that most of the preceding paragraphs are not needed, in that they describe the OCs themselves rather than the cooperative mechanisms among them. I don't think we need to do that.<br>
><br>
> --MM<br>
><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org">internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
>> WUKnoben<br>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 5:53 AM<br>
>> To: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org>; IANA Stewardship Transition<br>
>> Coordination Group <<a href="mailto:internal-cg@ianacg.org">internal-cg@ianacg.org</a>><br>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs<br>
>><br>
>> I think this is a good summary - at least for insiders. I wonder whether we<br>
>> shouldn't be a bit more specific on how the interrelation between the OCs<br>
>> works. "A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the<br>
>> relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed." Some examples may be<br>
>> helpful: ICANN board membership, cross-membership between OCs, cross-<br>
>> community working groups...<br>
>><br>
>> Just an idea.<br>
>><br>
>> Wolf-Ulrich<br>
>><br>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----<br>
>> From: Lynn St.Amour<br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:26 PM<br>
>> To: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group<br>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs<br>
>><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> sending again, as I did not see this come through on our list.<br>
>><br>
>> --------------<br>
>><br>
>> Please find attached the suggested text for action item:<br>
>><br>
>> 10) St. Amour, Gerich, and Fältström to summarize how collaboration works<br>
>> today between the OCs.<br>
>><br>
>> Our task was to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs.<br>
>> In doing so, we recognized that the 3 OC model had not really been elaborated<br>
>> on in the ICG's proposal and as that was the basic underpinning, we tried to<br>
>> cover both.<br>
>><br>
>> Our current thinking is that in Part 0 a new section after paragraph 01 could<br>
>> be useful. Basically, a high level model introduction (although Part<br>
>> 0 is evolving quite significantly and there may be a better place).<br>
>><br>
>> The text below is based on RFC 2860, SAC-067, and the Internet Organizations<br>
>> (I*) Shared Resource document at<br>
>> <a href="https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/is-internetresources-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/is-internetresources-</a><br>
>> 201308-en.pdf<br>
>> . Note: the text below would need to incorporate appropriate references.<br>
>><br>
>> There has been a significant level of discussion on this amongst the group<br>
>> members. Elise has some concerns and we agreed to highlight that fact to the<br>
>> ICG as part of our review. I will leave it to Elise to share those concerns if they<br>
>> have still not been adequately addressed..<br>
>><br>
>> <start><br>
>><br>
>> The Internet's incredible growth and success has been due in large part to its<br>
>> shared global ownership, use of open standards, and freely accessible<br>
>> processes for technology and policy development. The smooth operation of<br>
>> the Internet depends upon a global, collaborative and community-driven<br>
>> approach to managing key shared resources.<br>
>><br>
>> Some of the most important shared resources are Internet Protocol<br>
>> addresses,<br>
>> Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters.<br>
>> Taken<br>
>> together these are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority<br>
>> (IANA) Function.<br>
>><br>
>> The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative<br>
>> coordinating services, under policy direction from 3 Operating Communities<br>
>> (OCs), for many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate.<br>
>> The three "operational communities" (OCs) are: the domain names<br>
>> community (organized around ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory<br>
>> committees); the number resources community (organized around the<br>
>> regional address registries or RIRs); and the protocol parameters community<br>
>> (organized around the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)).<br>
>><br>
>> The identifiers are:<br>
>><br>
>> 1) Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone;<br>
>> 2) Internet Numbers Registry;<br>
>> 3) Protocol Parameter Registry, including the "Address and Routing Parameter<br>
>> Area" (.ARPA) TLD;<br>
>> 4) INTernational treaty organizations (.INT) top-level domain.<br>
>><br>
>> The services above are performed under a number of independent<br>
>> operational agreements between the Operating Communities (OC) and ICANN<br>
>> (as the current IANA Functions Operator), as well as under a contract between<br>
>> ICANN and the USG Department of Commerce given their stewardship role<br>
>> over these functions.<br>
>><br>
>> It is important to note that the Policy and many of the Oversight<br>
>> responsibilities for these tasks lie with the operational communities and not<br>
>> the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), hence they do not form part of the IFO's<br>
>> responsibilities.<br>
>><br>
>> -- Policies are defined as "the agreed upon rules developed through<br>
>> community-based processes by which shared Internet resources are<br>
>> managed".<br>
>> -- Oversight here is defined as "to ensure policies and implementation are<br>
>> aligned and promote the coherent long-term development and use of shared<br>
>> Internet resources."<br>
>> -- Implementation of such shared Internet resources (i.e. IANA Functions)<br>
>> should be "in a neutral and responsible manner, guided by the relevant policy<br>
>> and oversight processes".<br>
>><br>
>> Community specific (and community defined) global policy development and<br>
>> oversight processes exist in the OCs as part of their responsibilities for<br>
>> ensuring the continued smooth operation of the global Internet. A web of<br>
>> relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and<br>
>> mechanisms evolve as needed. This transition proposal was developed by the<br>
>> 3 OCs, and existing coordination mechanisms were used to ensure its overall<br>
>> coherence.<br>
>><br>
>> Coordination across the OCs is clearly an essential component to the<br>
>> Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral part of<br>
>> the OCs operating and policy development processes. In the specific case<br>
>> of the IANA Functions, each community has clearly restated their ongoing<br>
>> commitment to cooperation. That commitment to cooperate has led to the<br>
>> situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA<br>
>> Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy<br>
>> decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run,<br>
>> is decentralized.<br>
>><br>
>> <end><br>
>><br>
>> This could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere. We look<br>
>> forward to the ICG's comments.<br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>> Lynn, Patrik, Elise<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org">Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org">Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org">Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org">Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>