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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 14:28:16 UTC 2015


Dear Mi8lton,
Tks
WILL look at the case soon
Kavouss


2015-04-27 15:32 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:

>  Kavouss:
>
> The origin was an email from Alissa on Friday April  24, in which she was
> executing an action item from the April 22 call
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2015 3:13 AM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller; Martin Boyle
> *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for
> RIRs/IETF
>
>
>
> 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/20150427/3c5af990/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list