[Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015

[Milton L Mueller]

Sherly, and ICG chairs:
I don't understand the last two "action items" from call #13.

Regarding #3, we had a discussion about jurisdiction in the IETF submission. It is recorded in the transcript of the Singapore F2F meeting. If you review the transcript of that discussion it is inconclusive. There may have been specific decisions taken on the list but all I can find is that we agreed to transmit a question about the IANA domain and trademark, not about jurisdiction.

The IETF representatives on the ICG said that there was no need to specify jurisdiction. Their view was expressed most directly by Housely (p 72) "The MoU sets the IAB As the ultimate authority in the case of a dispute, so if the IETF and ICANN disagree, then IAB decides." In other words, the IETF's ultimate recourse is not court of law but the decision to stop using ICANN's IANA and set up its own. This may or may not be a viable position, but the position itself is not clear from the proposal, only from Russ's explanation.

I think the only way to make progress here is to ask: what specific question - if any - did we agree to transmit to the IETF about jurisdiction? Narelle on p. 105 says she thinks the concrete question to go back to the IETF was "in what jurisdiction do you think the MoU operates?" But she also said she thought the IETF submission answered that question, indirectly "because it points you off to a bunch of other documents." 

I am concerned because this keeps popping up as an action item but no one seems to know what action is required. 

Regarding the second part of #3, " the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs," I have absolutely no idea to what this is referring. Can someone enlighten me?

Regarding #4, all I recall is a suggestion that we make infographs, and that I reacted to this negatively, others reacted unenthusiastically, one or two others thought it a good idea. But the discussion was inconclusive. In what sense is this an action item? We have, in my opinion, not agreed on any action, and the discussion last night did not move us anywhere. 


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 3.	The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list about:
> 1) jurisdiction issue of the 	current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities
> of coordination between the operation 	communities (referred to in
> the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs).
> 
> 4.	The ICG Chairs to continue checking the possibility of using ICG
> Secretariat to develop the 	required messaging/infographs as first
> preference and report back to the ICG.
> 
> Action Items from ICG Call #14
> 1.	Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call
> schedule after ICANN 	Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list.
> 
> 2.	The ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes from ICG
> Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG 	Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg
> mailing list and in the next call.
> 
> 3.	The Secretariat edited the explanatory text of the published timeline
> document (March 2014 	into April 2015; v8 into v9).
> 
> 4.	The ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization
> process for the protocol 	parameter and numbers proposals.
> 
> 5.	Approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 7 Feb.
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Sherly
> ICG Secretariat
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:16 PM
> To: Sherly Haristya
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org; admin at icgsec.asia
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015
> 
> 
> > On 8 Apr 2015, at 09:11, Sherly Haristya <sherly at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Please find the action items from ICG Call #14 as follows:
> >
> > 1.            To edit the explanatory text of the published timeline document
> (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9).
> 
> This action item was approved after this edit was done.
> 
> Can secretariat edit and expedite this?
> 
> > 2.            The ICG, under the volunteering of Subrenat and Clark together
> with the Secretariat, to continue discussing the consolidation of information
> collected during the assessment process of the three operational
> communities’ proposals on the internal cg-mailing list.
> > 3.            Arkko and Barrett to continue providing further information
> (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF and RIRs’ current
> overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA
> interaction.
> > 4.            ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process
> for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals.
> > 5.            The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list
> about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the
> practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred
> to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs).
> > 6.            Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call
> schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list.
> > 7.            Regarding minutes for approval: 1) Approval of minutes from ICG
> Meeting #4 - 7 Feb; 2) ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes
> from ICG Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg
> mailing list and in the next call.
> 
> Can secretariat please initiate this conclusions of approval by sending
> messages to the list pointing out what is remaining to discuss?
> 
> Can the secretariat also send out a new list of outstanding action items?
> 
>    Patrik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at ianacg.org
> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org