[Internal-cg] Contracting

Mon Apr 27 14:22:30 UTC 2015

Dear Alissa
Thanks
Then why we intervene?
Why we need to make an statement unless ICANN ADDRESSS ITSELF TO icg?
I suggest no action at all
Kavouss

2015-04-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Hi Kavouss,
>
> The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities
> engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See:
>
>
> https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-developments
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf (starting
> at slide 18)
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-stewardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf (p.
> 2-3)
>
> I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about the
> two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG should
> say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on this idea
> as they see fit.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
> Thank you for your comments
> 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN  Staff to
> ICGin regard with what Alissa said
> Quote
> " Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to
> make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by
> an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering
> with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is
> also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and
> are not transparent to the whole involved community.”
> Unquote
> I do not know what was the  procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so.
> The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from
> that Liasion .
> 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not
> received any formal statement from ICANN.
> 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational communities
> and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to any conclusion
> 4 What Milton saying that IETF has  already had the right to “split” or
> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through
> various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something
> similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be
> valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these
> existing MoU are to be treated.
> We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG output
> Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then to decide what
> appropriate actions to be taken
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>
>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo
>> raised a question for me:
>>
>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important
>> process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives
>> consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to
>> alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is
>> attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights
>> exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it
>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational
>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on
>> behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.”
>>
>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same
>> things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement
>> of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties,
>> including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition
>> proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that
>> includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms
>> associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the
>> IANA functions operator?
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Milton,
>> >
>> > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and
>> ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it
>> thinks NTIA wants.  NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include
>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions."
>> >
>> > Lynn
>> >
>> > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith:
>> >>
>> >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA
>> functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that
>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract
>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?”
>> >>
>> >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be
>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would
>> like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this.
>> >>
>> >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or
>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through
>> various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something
>> similar.
>> >>
>> >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no
>> business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA
>> wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing
>> about splitting the IANA functions.
>> >>
>> >> --MM
>> >>
>> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
>> Of Jennifer Chung
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM
>> >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat
>> Transcript
>> >>
>> >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email.  Attached
>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> Jennifer
>> >>
>> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM
>> >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org'
>> >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript
>> >>
>> >> Dear All,
>> >>
>> >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll
>> call (below) for Call 15.  Please let me know if you note any discrepancies:
>> >>
>> >> ICG Members
>> >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)
>> >> Paul Wilson (NRO)
>> >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC)
>> >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO)
>> >> Alissa Cooper (IETF)
>> >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC)
>> >> Jari Arkko (IETF)
>> >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO)
>> >> Demi Getschko (ISOC)
>> >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC)
>> >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries)
>> >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries)
>> >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB)
>> >> Michael Niebel (GAC)
>> >> Narelle Clark (ISOC)
>> >> Russ Housley (IAB)
>> >> Russ Mundy (SSAC)
>> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO)
>> >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO)
>> >> Alan Barrett (NRO)
>> >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC)
>> >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS)
>> >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO)
>> >>
>> >> Liaisons
>> >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison)
>> >>
>> >> Apologies
>> >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison)
>> >> James Bladel (GNSO)
>> >> Milton Mueller (GNSO)
>> >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO)
>> >> Manal Ismail (GAC)
>> >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC)
>> >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC)
>> >> Thomas Schneider (GAC)
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Jennifer
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Internal-cg mailing list
>> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Internal-cg mailing list
>> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/a01f3a35/attachment.html>