[Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory

[Lynn St.Amour]

Dear colleagues,

please find attached the list of bulleted Implementation items for Part 0.   As you have already seen, there is a fuller (but still high level) "inventory" underway that describes the implementation items in more detail, identifies groups responsible for implementing and for oversight, and identifies dependencies.  The current thinking is that this will be published in a separate document, but this remains an open item for one of our future meetings.  I also note that there are a number of expectations re the ICG's role in overseeing implementation and we need to have a response/close gaps in expectations but this is also a discussion for a future meeting.

Look forward to your reviews and comments.

Lynn

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG - Part 0 - Implementation Items .docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 114299 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151005/4829677d/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------



On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:

> Hi Alissa,
> 
> 
> On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> Thank you Lynn. I like the detail here. Do you think it would be appropriate to include the whole table in Part 0? Or should we just have a simpler bulleted list in Part 0? Then we could include the table as an appendix, or not at all.
> 
> A simple bulleted list would be better for Part 0.  Perhaps an Appendix, or thinking aloud, it could be helpful to pull all these together in a separate Implementations document.  That document could also specify roles and responsibilities, as clearly, different expectations abound for ICG and ICANN.  It would be another opportunity to highlight the 3 OC "model", and a more visible implementation plan may provide comfort to some.
> 
>> I would suggest having a separate section at the top for items that cross all three communities - PTI, IPR.
> 
> Yes, will do, once we have all items in and the ICG has reviewed them.
> 
>> I note that the items listed in paragraph 3062 of the proposal are not included in the table. I think they should be, and they require the addition of a new column I think, since they are actions expected to be taken but not necessarily required before contract expiry.
> 
> I wondered about this as well.   Given they are stated as an expectation and an acknowledgement, couldn't we get them now and include them in Part 0.  That will be more of a commitment.
> 
> As part of Part 0, the ICG could get/include the confirmation from all parties that protocol parameters registries are in the public domain.  This is better done now than later anyway.
> 
> And, for the 2nd point, again the same -- get the commitment now and include in PArt 0.
> 
> Note: Paragraph 3062 included below for ease of other ICG members.
> 
> Of course, I am also happy with including them in the Inventory if this is what the ICG prefers.
> 
> Lynn
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> • 3062  However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community’s expectations are met. Those expectations are the following:
> 
> o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.
> 
> o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries or other resources currently located at iana.org.
>> 
>> Alissa 
>> 
>>> On Sep 27, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear ICG members,
>>> 
>>> for your review, please find attached the Implementation Action Item Inventory for the Number and Protocol Parameters Operating Communities.  Particular thanks go to Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP Co-chairs) for their work on the Numbers proposal, and to Alan Barrett for facilitating their support.
>>> 
>>> Keith Drazek and I are working with the Names OC to complete the inventory for the Names proposal, but unfortunately we will not be able to complete this for another 2 -3 days.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Lynn
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <ICG - Action Item Inventory - Draft.xlsx>_______________________________________________
>>> 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