[Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory

Lynn St.Amour Lynn at LStAmour.org
Tue Oct 6 01:26:56 UTC 2015


On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi Lynn,
> 
> Thank you for pulling this together. I think this is at the right level of abstraction for Part 0.
> 
> I’ve attached a redlined version with some comments (Dropbox: <https://www.dropbox.com/s/6j6guvdcoyuhmic/ICG%20-%20Part%200%20-%20Implementation%20Items-ALC.docx?dl=0>). Some questions/comments I had:
> 

Thanks Alissa, 

good questions.  I will take a shot at responding, but the OCs themselves will need to weigh in here as they are their implementation items.

> * In the first section on items that need to be completed before sending the proposal to NTIA, items b) and c) look new to me, in that they do not appear in the proposals or in our expected question responses from the OCs. Where did these come from?

These were sent in from the Numbers community as part of what they thought they needed to implement.    I extended them to the Protocol Parameters OC and sent a draft to those involved.  As there was no objection, I left them in.  Happy to take them out of course - for the PP OC or take them out altogether.

WRT the 2nd point: "The Number and Protocol Parameter communities to confirm that the expected implementation of the PTI is as expected in their proposals."  Again, submitted by the Numbers OC (and I extended to the PP OC),  expect this is because there were a number of moving parts wrt the PTI and the Numbers OC felt it was a useful thing to do.    Again, happy to take out if they prefer.


> * The items d) and e) were specifically not meant to be gating on the transition proposal completion, so I moved them down.

That's fine.  Although I do think we should just get them done -  good leverage at the moment.

> * On the PTI items, at least from the IETF point of view, I don’t think the IETF community or the IAB has any plans to be involved in the aspects that you list. That is, the IETF’s position is that if ICANN chooses to subcontract the protocol parameters functions to its affiliate it is free to do so as long as it continues to meet its obligations under the MoU and SLAs. Assuming the numbers community has a similar position (Alan? Paul? or I could dig back through their comments), I think the PTI items belong in category 2.

I tried to reflect in the intro. text (may need revising) that I didn't expect deep involvement from the Numbers and PP OCs in defining these activities nor participation in them (budget should be an exception) but did think it would be responsible for each OC (and responsible to the overall transition) to minimally monitor their development (if only to be sure they evolved as expected).  If both those OCs are ok with just letting the CWG get on with it alone, then we can take them out.  

Best,
Lynn


> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> <ICG - Part 0 - Implementation Items-ALC.docx>
>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> <ICG - Part 0 - Implementation Items .docx>
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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




More information about the Internal-cg mailing list