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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 21:38:00 UTC 2015


Alissia
I did object and you ignored that objection
There are 30 ICG mnembers and I do not know apart from the handful
colleagues that supoorted you whether the otehrs were objecting, sor
abstention.
In a domecratic process if the number of abstention is more than those
supporting the process will not be carried forward.
However, you openly and publicly ignored my objection and I will take the
necessary measures at the next f2f meeting oposing to your ruluing .
I have drafted a Consensus Building Document during and after Istanbu and
there are clear procedure on how the consensus to be buils and what are the
duties of the chair and co chairs in negotiating / discussing the matter
with the objecting ICG member and trying to reconcile.
All these procedure were totally ignored.
I will also refer to that at the next f2f meeting
You need to respect the views of the minority ..We are not at IETF IN WHICH
YOUR SO-CALLED ROUGH CONSENSUS WORKS.
UICG did not agreed to such a rought or soft or black or wghhiote consensus
.
Please apply the rule and please take a fair position.
Regards
Kavouss

2015-04-29 21:23 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Hi Kavouss,
>
> I did not receive any objections to sending the message to the IETF and
> RIRs, and I did see support for sending it.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Alissa,
> Thank you again
> It seems that you have already sent the NOTE in spite of objections sent
> top you since  several days.
> In that case such NOTE reflects your position and positions of those that
> supported you and in no way does represent the ICG consensus.
> Unfortunately we are entering to a dangerous phase in which messages are
> sent in the  Name of the whole ICG where there are objections
> Pls clartify the matter
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-04-29 20:05 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear Milton,
>> Thanky you for your kind continual briefing.
>> Pls read my message before acting on bejhalf of any community as altering
>> entity without being given any such mission.
>> What Alissa and what you indicating are correct but just leave it at this
>> stage .The two communities that you are worried about and wishing that ICG
>> take a position are now properly alerted by the draft.
>> Leave it as it stands and not take a position in favour of one or others.
>> We are in commenting period .We have have not received any formal
>> proposal from CWG. I agree that we could internally discuss. examine and
>> analyse any point but NOT ACT on behalf of or in support of any community
>> at this stage
>> Best Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>> 2015-04-29 18:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>>
>>> I can send a clarification.
>>>
>>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed or
>>> do you think it would be better if you did it?
>>>
>>> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org
>>> <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM
>>> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for
>>> RIRs/IETF
>>>
>>> FYI, these messages have been sent.
>>>
>>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from
>>> Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve
>>> left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion
>>> concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN
>>> working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major
>>> objections on the list.
>>>
>>> Thanks all.
>>>
>>> Alissa
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> Dear <IETF/RIR 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 likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the
>>> non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also
>>> want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same
>>> entity or allowing them to be separated.
>>>
>>> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have
>>> related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available,
>>> including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them
>>> subcontract their 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.
>>>
>>> * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the
>>> CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your
>>> community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus
>>> joint ownership involving all or multiple communities.
>>>
>>> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F)
>>> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed
>>> post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities
>>> be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing
>>> reviews.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions
>>> the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC.
>>>
>>> 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 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20150429/5f224e80/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list