[Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested

Mon Mar 9 03:44:27 UTC 2015

For what it's worth, I find Russ' points quite compelling.

That said, here is a presentation I gave in 2011 that contains a lot of the diagrams that Kavouss is requesting. Jari may wish to use those.

They can be found at:
http://www.internetsociety.org.au/Events/

Near the top there is a section:
30 September 2011: 'Request for What?? - Participating in Internet Standards Processes'<http://www.internetsociety.org.au/Events/ietf-overview-ACS-TSA20110930.pdf>, presented by Narelle Clark, Vice-President of ISOC-AU for the ACS Telecommunications SIG<http://www.acs.org.au/acstsa/index.cfm>.

Regards

Narelle

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy
Sent: Monday, 9 March 2015 10:07 AM
To: Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested

Kavouss & Colleagues,

This thread seems to have two fundamental issues:

First, how understandable (or non-understandable) are the accountability aspects of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals;

Second, there is some requirement for the accountability aspects of the three operational communities to be compared or combined in some way.

- With respect to the first, I believe that both the numbers and protocol parameters existing proposals are each sufficiently clear and complete in their accountability descriptions.  Although it might be useful to have some graphical illustrations of their respective processes, I do not see that it is within the remit of the ICG to require these illustrations.

  -- If ICG members (or others) want additional information about what is currently defined in NTIA-ICANN contract, I would suggest reviewing SAC-068 and, if needed, the Contract itself and the referenced agreements.  My personal interpretation of what these say is that the numbers operational community and the protocol parameters operational community each have separate, independent agreements outside of the Contract and, further, those agreements are the dominant authority (not the Contract) for how the IANA functions should be carried out for each respective operational community.  In short, if these operational communities are satisfied with the accountability mechanisms for their respective functions, it is not within the ICG remit to question or challenge them since the Contract has already put those communities in charge of their respective portions of the IANA functions.  (I'd also like to note that there are no similar such provisions for the names community.)

With respect to the second issue, I see no need (let alone a requirement) to compare the accountability processes between any of the three OCs.  This point is emphasized by the fact the current Contract says accountability between two of these communities is defined by the respective operational communities via agreements that are separate and independent from the Contract.  When the ICG receives the names proposal, we (the ICG) will have to make a judgement about the compatibility and interoperability of that proposal with the other two - I do not think that it would not be appropriate or fruitful to try to compare the names accountability processes with either the numbers or protocol parameters proposals since each OC is dealing with separate issues and challenges which will require different approaches to accountability.

Russ (M)

On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Jopseph,
May I explain a little bit the objectives of the querry.
The terms and condition and status of accountabilty currently applied to Protocole and numbers are not clear.
The presentation of these accountability are too complex and it is not clear who is accountable to whom
I raised this question to Jari , representing Protocol and he agreed to provide diagram clearly indicating the hierarchy of the implementation and application of the accountavblity as curremntly practiced.
The same is valid for numbers
Then in regard with the accountabilty after transition sebveral paragraphs spread over various pages deal with7 addressing the post transition accountabilty.
For me as an ICG member .it is not clear what are the consequence of transition in regard with accoutabilty before and after transition .
For thse reasons I asked for a comparative tabulated form indicating the accountabilty at various level and the corresponding  hierarchy before and after transition.
Should  you  have a better way to have such a tabular form which I referred to it as comparative and you seems not to be happy with such term ,please guide me.
But currently the suituation is tiotally vague
Regards
Kavouss

2015-03-08 16:29 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>>:
Colleagues

Perhaps we should develop a set of questions for all communities to answer.  I'm not sure that its appropriate to ask communities to develop comparative documents.

Best-

Joe

On 3/8/2015 11:00 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals
Dear Vice chair,
May you please ask  TWO OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES a) ProtoCOL & Parameters and b) Nummbers to Kindly   provide the followings;
A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion.
It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition.
The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a comparision.
Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on accountability before and after transition.
By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF
mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular  that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire  Rir s are not clear
Rergards

2015-03-08 15:06 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
Dear Patrik
Thank you for reply
The question addressed to two operational communities represented by Jari and Paul or Alan . If my request was not properly formulated I hereby correct that in raising these questions and seeking clarifications from protocol and numbers operational communities  AND NOT to  ANY ICG MEMBER
Regards
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 8 Mar 2015, at 09:47, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se<mailto:paf at frobbit.se>> wrote:
All,

This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further explanation by other ICG members.

   Patrik

Begin forwarded message:
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Date: 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET
To: Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se<mailto:paf at frobbit.se>>,  Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net<mailto:mbashir at mbash.net>>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
Subject: Information requested
À Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG
[cid:~WRD000.jpg]

Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals
Dear Vice chair,
May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to provide the foloowings;
A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion.
It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition.
The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a comparision.
Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on accountability before and after transition.
By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF
mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular  that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire  Rir s are not clear
Rergards
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________

Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at ianacg.org>

http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150309/aac6a734/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: ~WRD000.jpg
URL: <http://ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150309/aac6a734/attachment.jpg>