[Internal-cg] Contracting

Wed Apr 29 06:26:28 UTC 2015

Dear Milton,
I have studied the whole sets of slides and not only those that you
referred to in your mail.
Pls kindly identify the particular subject 7 issues on which ICG needs to
make a statement
There are many issues which are not clear. There are quoatation from ICANN
( VERBAL ) .
Are we dealing with the rights of having separate termination of agreement
between IANA OPERATOR ( I saw three different references to Numbering,
naming and protocol operators )
Who are these three  operators?
ICANN?
PTI( which is referred to for naming in CWG second Draft ) or others?
Are we dealing with the quoataion that  "*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 ?”*
Please kindly as supèporter of  sending  statement specify the subject(s)
on which we have concerns?
I have no problem to issue a statement if the source is official and if the
subject is clear
Regards
Kavouss

2015-04-28 20:17 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>:

> Hello Alissa,
>
> like others, I find that a statement from ICG would have value. This
> should focus on the gap, or risk of a gap, between the agreed standards
> under which we are operating in putting together a plan for the Transition
> of Stewardship, and actions that may undermine, or be seen to undermine,
> these standards. We could also point out that, at a time when the community
> is engaged in a large effort to improve Accountability, including in the
> perspective of Transition, all parties should felt bound by the same
> obligation of carrying out discussions in an open and documented manner.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>
> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Envoyé: Mardi 28 Avril 2015 18:51:42
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting
>
> Hi Alissa, all,
>
> I support sending a statement such as you propose.  This is too important
> a principle and too important a task for us not to be vigilant,
> particularly when there are reports of statements that contradict previous
> agreements.
>
> Best,
> Lynn
>
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kavouss,
> >
> > We established in our RFP that the transition proposals should be
> supported by community consensus, developed in the open, and that all
> interested stakeholders should get involved in them early on. What Milton
> is questioning and what the reports out from the OCs linked below point to
> is that ICANN staff may not be adhering to these tenets as we set them out.
> I wouldn’t expect them to come tell us that they aren’t adhering to them,
> which is why I’m asking whether we need to proactively reinforce our
> expectation that everyone adhere to them, including ICANN. As the body that
> put out the RFP, this seems well within our remit.
> >
> > Alissa
> >
> > On Apr 27, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150429/49a6224c/attachment.html>