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

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Fri May 1 17:35:13 UTC 2015


Hi Kavouss,

My responses are in-line below.

On May 1, 2015, at 12:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Alissa,
> You wanted me to send you a copy of several messages to you and Milton and Wolf and others .
> I am sorry I  do not have  time to do that.

That is unfortunate since I sent a list of all your messages on the topic of the note to the IETF and RIRs and indicated that it was not clear which one contained the objection. All that I was asking was for you to point out which one of those contained the objection.

> The issue is simple
> YOU HAVE RAISED POINTS RELATING TO THE APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE SECOND DRAFT OF CWG and the activities of two other OCs..

I never said anything about inconsistencies, and neither did anyone else as far as I recall. The note that was sent merely points out sections of the CWG proposal that might be of interest to the other two OCs. It does not take a position about anything in the CWG proposal.

> You did send one ICG Note ( statement) to two OCs ( NUMBERS AND PROTOCOLS) and you were in the final stage of sending another one in the name of ICG to these communities

I do not know why you are claiming that the statement about contracts/agreements is “in the final stage.” We are having a mostly productive discussion about it in the other mailing list thread, and that discussion should continue until we have solidified what we want to say and obtained consensus to publish it.

> I did object for the course of actions that you have taken and the one that you are ( perhaps it is still in the process ) to be taken .

So it seems that your mails in response to the statement on contracts/agreements were also meant as objections to the note sent to the IETF and RIRs. This was not clear. In the future, it would help if you could specify when your comments apply to multiple efforts that we have ongoing at the same time, since email threading tends to imply that topics are segregated. 


> The reasons for my objections has two fold .
> 1 .Procedural
> 1.1 Second CWG Draft has not been formally sent to the ICG ( I raised the question with Jonathan Robinson ,one of the co chair of CWG at one of the CCWG CALL and he confirmed that  nothing was sent to ICG)
> 1.2.The second draft is at commenting period and is expected to be finalized after all commons were received and duly considered .
> 2.Practical approach
> Once we receive the CWG output, we need to carefully examine it and should we decide to send a Note outside ICG, hat Note should be approved in a formal manner with unanimity or consensus .

The whole point of the note to the IETF and RIRs was to point out to them parts of the CWG proposal that might be of interest for them to comment on during the public comment period. It was about soliciting input from them, not about us contributing any input.

> For that we need atheist a conference call in which every body could benefited from the views of other and freely communicate with each other and exchanges views with each other.

Our decision-making process allows for decisions to be taken on the mailing list or at meetings <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-guidelines-decision-making-17sep14-en.pdf>. The note to the IETF and RIRs was straightforward enough to arrive at consensus without requiring meeting time.

> 
> 2.Pnciples to be followed
> We are not alerting entity and have not been mandated as Watch Dog for any OC. to warn them or to alert them.
> They are experts in their area of work ,they are matured , knowledgeable and competent .They could individually and collectively detect or identify and shortcoming or deficiencies or overlapping  and send their comments to CWG..However, should they raise any question to ICG we as a coordinating body would examine those questions and acts appropriately
> In view of the above, I am not in favour of sending ANY NOTE IN THE NAME OF ICG in regard  with any issue  relating  to CWG SECOND DRAFT UNTIL WE FORMALLY RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL FROM THE NAMING COMMUNITY.

As our name suggests, we are a coordination group, and the goal of the note was to help aid in coordination among the three communities. Our first responsibility in our charter is to liaise with the operational communities <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf>. Since we are the ones who asked to have the separate proposal components created within distinct communities, it is incumbent upon us to help them coordinate with each other as necessary. From Izumi’s response it seems that at least the numbering community is appreciative of our efforts to help coordinate the communities.

Best,
Alissa

> In addition in regard with any discussion between IETF and RIRE ,on the one hand and ICANN ( MANAMGEMNET OR STAFF) on the other hand in relation with their MoU  and SLA is a matter between them and ICG should not mintervene at this stage .
> Regards
> Kavouss  
> 
> 
> 2015-04-30 22:30 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
> Hi Kavouss,
> 
> Could you forward the original message containing your objection to the mailing list?
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> aLISSA,
>> no
>> IT IS NOT TRUE
>> I HAVE OBJECTED TO BOTH
>> whether you have support from your team or colleagues .I have objections for both and you have breached the rules
>> Kavouss
>> 
>> 2015-04-30 17:04 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>> Hi Kavouss, Manal,
>> 
>> I would prefer if we continue this discussion on the mailing list rather than in private email.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Manal,
>>> You were absent and did not follow the matter.
>>> From the very begining I did object. Then Milton got in and told better to read the whole before objecting.
>>> Several messages were exchanged and I never ever agreed to send any thing as I am of the strong view that IETF AND rIRs do not need any raltering entity and ICG does not have such a mandate and Naming may not be happy that we took  position of alerting entity for two other OCs and we are still in commenting period. and we have not received any formal proposal from CWG and we do not have such a mandate in our charter AND WE ARE NOT SPOKEMAN OF GOD
>>> That was the whole stroy.
>>> I did stringly object Alissa clearly bluntly and openly and with full awareneed radically ignored my objection in favour of few other people.
>>> The neutrality, impartility and fairness was not respected and the rules of the game was breached
>>> Best Regards
>>> KAVOUSS
>>> 
>>> 2015-04-30 13:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>>> Alissa,
>>> You need to improve your ruling.
>>> You need not to take any initiatuive on behalf of any community
>>> We all need to act impartial, neutralé and fair
>>> fROM THE VERY BEGINING YOU TREATED ME BADLY.
>>> Rember in f2f Istanbul how many time I tried to talk to you and how many time you rejected that
>>> Pls BE fair ,kind neutral,
>>> Kavouss
>>> 
>>> 2015-04-30 13:00 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>>> I did object but some people being in a so-called ring did not want to take my objections into account
>>> Regards
>>> Kavouss 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
>>> Date: 2015-04-30 9:18 GMT+02:00
>>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for	RIRs/IETF
>>> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear All ..
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I’ve been away for a whole week and am still trying to catch up with my inbox and the discussions progressing on all mailing lists !!
>>> 
>>> If I understand correctly, I think we’re mixing 2 things here:
>>> 
>>> -          The statement to which Mr. Arasteh has objected and which did not go out yet, as far as I understand, and
>>> 
>>> -          The note which Alissa has already sent to the IETF and RIRs and to which I have seen no objections
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Hope this helps to resolve the misunderstanding or am I missing something?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards
>>> 
>>> --Manal
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:08 AM
>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Hi Kavouss,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Maybe your objection didn’t make it to the list? These are all the mails I see from you before I made the final call for objections on the text of the note to the IETF and RIRs:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000155.html
>>> 
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000159.html
>>> 
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000241.html
>>> 
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000245.html
>>> 
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000258.html
>>> 
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000259.html
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> None of them seem to contain an objection, unless I’m missing something?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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] 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] 
>>> 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] 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] 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] 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/20150501/6cc0bde6/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list