[Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs

[Mueller, Milton L]

I would agree with Wolf-U that you'd need a lot more specifics in the paragraph about the web of relationships, I would go further and say that most of the preceding paragraphs are not needed, in that they describe the OCs themselves rather than the cooperative mechanisms among them. I don't think we need to do that. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> WUKnoben
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 5:53 AM
> To: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org>; IANA Stewardship Transition
> Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs
> 
> I think this is a good summary - at least for insiders. I wonder whether we
> shouldn't be a bit more specific on how the interrelation between the OCs
> works. "A web of relationships exists between these OCs, and the
> relationships and mechanisms evolve as needed." Some examples may be
> helpful: ICANN board membership, cross-membership between OCs, cross-
> community working groups...
> 
> Just an idea.
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:26 PM
> To: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] how collaboration works today between the OCs
> 
> Hi,
> 
> sending again, as I did not see this come through on our list.
> 
> --------------
> 
> Please find attached the suggested text for action item:
> 
> 10) St. Amour, Gerich, and Fältström to summarize how collaboration works
> today between the OCs.
> 
> Our task was to summarize how collaboration works today between the OCs.
> In doing so, we recognized that the 3 OC model had not really been elaborated
> on in the ICG's proposal and as that was the basic underpinning, we tried to
> cover both.
> 
> Our current thinking is that in Part 0 a new section after paragraph 01 could
> be useful.  Basically, a high level model introduction (although Part
> 0 is evolving quite significantly and there may be a better place).
> 
> The text below is based on RFC 2860, SAC-067, and the Internet Organizations
> (I*) Shared Resource document at
> https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/is-internetresources-
> 201308-en.pdf
> .   Note: the text below would need to incorporate appropriate references.
> 
> There has been a significant level of discussion on this amongst the group
> members.  Elise has some concerns and we agreed to highlight that fact to the
> ICG as part of our review.  I will leave it to Elise to share those concerns if they
> have still not been adequately addressed..
> 
> <start>
> 
> The Internet's incredible growth and success has been due in large part to its
> shared global ownership, use of open standards, and freely accessible
> processes for technology and policy development.  The smooth operation of
> the Internet depends upon a global, collaborative and community-driven
> approach to managing key shared resources.
> 
> Some of the most important shared resources are Internet Protocol
> addresses,
> Domain Names/DNS Root Zone Management, and Protocol Parameters.
> Taken
> together these are referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
> (IANA) Function.
> 
> The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) performs a set of administrative
> coordinating services, under policy direction from 3 Operating Communities
> (OCs), for many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate.
> The three "operational communities" (OCs) are: the domain names
> community (organized around ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory
> committees); the number resources community (organized around the
> regional address registries or RIRs); and the protocol parameters community
> (organized around the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)).
> 
> The identifiers are:
> 
> 1) Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone;
> 2) Internet Numbers Registry;
> 3) Protocol Parameter Registry, including the "Address and Routing Parameter
> Area" (.ARPA) TLD;
> 4) INTernational treaty organizations (.INT) top-level domain.
> 
> The services above are performed under a number of independent
> operational agreements between the Operating Communities (OC) and ICANN
> (as the current IANA Functions Operator), as well as under a contract between
> ICANN and the USG Department of Commerce given their stewardship role
> over these functions.
> 
> It is important to note that the Policy and many of the Oversight
> responsibilities for these tasks lie with the operational communities and not
> the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), hence they do not form part of the IFO's
> responsibilities.
> 
> -- Policies are defined as "the agreed upon rules developed through
> community-based processes by which shared Internet resources are
> managed".
> -- Oversight here is defined as "to ensure policies and implementation are
> aligned and promote the coherent long-term development and use of shared
> Internet resources."
> -- Implementation of such shared Internet resources (i.e. IANA Functions)
> should be "in a neutral and responsible manner, guided by the relevant policy
> and oversight processes".
> 
> Community specific (and community defined) global policy development and
> oversight processes exist in the OCs as part of their responsibilities for
> ensuring the continued smooth operation of the global Internet.  A web of
> relationships exists between these OCs, and the relationships and
> mechanisms evolve as needed.  This transition proposal was developed by the
> 3 OCs, and existing coordination mechanisms were used to ensure its overall
> coherence.
> 
> Coordination across the OCs is clearly an essential component to the
> Internet's successful development, and collaboration is an integral part of
> the OCs operating and policy development processes.   In the specific case
> of the IANA Functions, each community has clearly restated their ongoing
> commitment to cooperation.  That commitment to cooperate has led to the
> situation we have today, where nearly all registries are with the IANA
> Functions Operator (at ICANN) even though the operational and policy
> decisions for where these registries will be located, and how they will be run,
> is decentralized.
> 
> <end>
> 
> This could be further edited or split if it fits better elsewhere.   We look
> forward to the ICG's comments.
> 
> Best,
> Lynn, Patrik, Elise
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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