[Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Mon Apr 27 03:39:05 UTC 2015

Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language.
I would propose a few edits if it's not too late, see below:

Dear <community>,

You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>. We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community:

1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A)
As in your community's proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities.

2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III)
The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications:

* The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI.

MM: I would replace "possibility" with "likelihood." I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC's comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization.

* Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement.

MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as "maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI."

* PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board.

3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F)
The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews.

MM: insert "periodically" between "reviewed" and "post-transition"

4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I)
The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities.

<for IETF only>
5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G)
The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC.

MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: "The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function."

If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know.

Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He'd be a good person to lead discussion of CWG.

Here is my memo (attached)

Disclaimer: it's my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions.
But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don't have to wade through 120 pages....

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM
To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF

I'll be on the call and have been following quite closely.

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF

Let's shoot for 1+3.

If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up.


On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM
To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>'
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF

I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30.
I'd propose the following options:
1.       I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call
2.       We could defer the discussion to another time
3.       You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do.
4.       1 + 4

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF
Importance: High

Hi all,

As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call.


Begin forwarded message:

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement
Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>

Dear all,

Per the Action Plan discussion on today's call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted.

Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice.

The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC.

Timeline for the upcoming week:

  *   Friday 17 April - Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC.
  *   Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars).
  *   Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days).
  *   Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings)
  *   Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan).
We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course,
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150427/1c640257/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list