[Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested
Daniel Karrenberg
daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Mon Mar 9 08:43:15 UTC 2015
Kavouss,
Patrik and I just pointed out that before asking formal questions the
ICG needs to take a decision to do so. It is not sufficient for one
member to raise a question.
Informally I have pointed out that the information you seek is already
available, maybe not in the form you request but it is there.
I have also stated my opinion that we will gain nothing by asking
general questions because the information is already there and the
answers will be no different than what is already there. If we want to
learn more, we have to ask specific questions.
Please be assured that I have no aggressive intentions at all. My
intention is to remind us of our agreed procedure and to help us to gain
the information we need.
If there is any deprivation involved here, I do not see it. ;-)
Daniel
On 9.03.15 8:47 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Russ
> No one intends nor requested to compare accountabilities between three
> communities . What was simply requested was a tabular form indicating
> the way accountability is implemented at various level and by various
> internal entities before and after transition
> I do not understand sensitivity demonstrated in an aggressive. Manner by
> those that from the first day of reception of the reports from these
> communities did not want to DO ANY THING AT ALL.
> It is propagative right of ICG and its any individual member to ask
> additional Information for enabling him or her To implement step 2
> Why we are deprived to do so???!!!
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 9 Mar 2015, at 00:06, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com
> <mailto:mundy at tislabs.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at ianacg.org
> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list