<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style></head>
<body>
<body><div>Thanks Daniel.</div><div><br></div><div>My plan was to describe the situation first and see how people see things.</div><div><br></div><div>Will draft some language.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Narelle </div><div id="composer_signature"></div><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> <br>Date: 9/10/2015 00:52 (GMT+10:00) <br>To: internal-cg@ianacg.org <br>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter <br><br></body>
<font size="2"><div class="PlainText">I remain extremely skeptical about this for the reasons I have explained<br>
earlier. Those in favor should propose concrete language for a revised<br>
charter. This language should describe and limit the proposed purview<br>
and actions of the group as well as specify the point in time when this<br>
group will disband.<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
On 8.10.15 13:13 , Narelle Clark wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Dear all,<br>
> in our face to face meeting in LA, we decided to defer the discussion<br>
> regarding what role if any the ICG should play during the<br>
> implementation phase of the transition. Alissa also kicked off the<br>
> discussion on the list. Here are some of my thoughts to guide us through<br>
> to Dublin.<br>
> <br>
> In the comments submitted to the ICG, the Internet Society pointed out:<br>
> <br>
> We would like to draw attention to the need for timely resolution of<br>
> outstanding issues with regards to the implementation of the various<br>
> processes, mechanisms and rules that relate to IANA. Details related to<br>
> the structure of the new Post-Transition IANA (PTI) and the various<br>
> bodies supporting it (e.g. CSC, IFR, etc.), implementation aspects of<br>
> the CCWG proposal (as it relates to IANA), a plan to successfully<br>
> conclude the SLAs, and a resolution of IANA-related intellectual<br>
> property rights have yet to be fully fleshed out. We urge the community<br>
> to determine:<br>
> <br>
> How these implementation details will be addressed in a timely<br>
> fashion to the satisfaction of all communities in a way that continues<br>
> to meet the principles set forth by NTIA; and,<br>
> <br>
> How all the communities will remain involved in the<br>
> implementation of the new structure in an appropriate manner.<br>
> <br>
> There is no denying the fact that a major part of the transition is<br>
> implementation. I would like to argue that a sound transition<br>
> implementation process is actually as important as having a complete and<br>
> robust proposal. At this stage I do not believe we have one.<br>
> <br>
> A major part of the transition is oversight: the system that ultimately<br>
> replaces the oversight of the US government. I think we all agree that<br>
> as a group we are responsible for ensuring that the IANA functions<br>
> continue to operate in a reliable, stable and predictable way. This<br>
> means a design that is able to deliver and meet the expectations and<br>
> needs of the IANA customers. I do not believe that this is achieved<br>
> simply by saying that we have a full proposal, when there is clearly a<br>
> gap arising from the status of the accountability model.<br>
> <br>
> As this group has repeatedly discussed, what the current proposal<br>
> foresees is that, for the purposes of the IETF and the RIRs, ICANN will<br>
> continue to operate as the IFO; ICANN, would therefore subcontract this<br>
> responsibility to a new PTI. The names community will contract directly<br>
> with PTI. So, in effect, PTI will be the entity responsible for<br>
> maintaining and operating the IANA functions. PTI, however, is a new<br>
> entity that will have to be established from scratch.<br>
> <br>
> And here is the gap.<br>
> <br>
> Were the US government to sign off on the transition and with the<br>
> various groups IANAPlan, CRISP and CWG (the latter disbanded) who<br>
> will make sure that the setting up of PTI and the various supporting<br>
> bodies is done in a manner that ensures the stability of the system? How<br>
> can we as the Internet community ensure that the new system supports<br>
> the ongoing performance of IANA?<br>
> <br>
> I think that there is a role for us. This body is the only one currently<br>
> in existence that is fully representative of the communities and one<br>
> that would not have the learning curve.<br>
> <br>
> We all have a vested interest in ensuring that IANA continues to operate<br>
> the way it does today i.e. without any interruptions or issues of<br>
> stability. I am not suggesting that we should micromanage the<br>
> implementation process rather that we could perhaps take the role of<br>
> some sort of an advisory body that will meet and intervene if and when<br>
> it considers that the implementation details fail to meet the standards<br>
> of performance expected for IANA. Indeed, to provide a form of oversight.<br>
> <br>
> I am aware that this raises issues with our charter, however, given how<br>
> lightweight the approach I am suggesting should be, this would require<br>
> nothing more than a minor adjustment. This would only need to be in<br>
> place until such time as PTI exists and back-to-back contracts (between<br>
> the IETF, RIRs, ICANN and PTI) are in place.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Of course, the community would need to be in support of such a thing,<br>
> and a period of public comment would be called for.<br>
> <br>
> The situation at present is to my mind more than a little serious. I<br>
> would therefore like to ask you to consider this in good faith.<br>
> <br>
> What I am suggesting is a very light weight and high level engagement<br>
> plan that will allow us to see through this transition. We all know just<br>
> how important this is, and the need for careful, cross-community<br>
> oversight until the entire system is in place.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Best regards <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Narelle <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> --<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Narelle Clark<br>
> Director of Operations - Deputy CEO<br>
> *Australian Communications *<br>
> <br>
> *Consumer Action Network*<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
> Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org<br>
> <a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a><br>
> <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org<br>
<a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a><br>
</div></font>
</body>
</html>