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

Mon Apr 27 07:13:04 UTC 2015

Dear All
Thank you again,
Sorry if I missed some part of the discussion
May you please advise  where the following questions addressed to the
Community to which Milton provided some suggestions emanated from ?
These are :

*" 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*
<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.” *

* Tks *

Kavouss

2015-04-27 5:39 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:

>  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.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller <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
> <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
> *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
> <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
> *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.
>
>
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller <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
> <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'
> *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
> <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
> *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.
>
>
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
>  *From: *Grace Abuhamad <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" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> *Cc: *Brenda Brewer <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,
>
> Grace
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
> <CWGsummary-PTI.pdf>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150427/a8547d2e/attachment.html>