[Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter

Fri Oct 9 10:27:06 UTC 2015

I would agree with Daniel about being careful of going beyond a strict 
rather than expansive reading of the Charter.  I would also suggest that 
it would be useful for us to be called upon to take a role beyond the 
assembly and delivery of a proposal.  I do think that we can all agreed 
that implementation is something we can address in terms of its 
coordination in the proposal, but I would not go as afar as to say 
"oversee" aspects of implementation.

Joe

On 10/9/2015 3:45 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> I stand by my interpretation of the charter: we are chartered to produce
> a proposal and nothing else.
>
> Daniel
>
> On 8.10.15 21:20 , Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> Daniel is assuming that we need to modify our charter to ensure that the proposal is complete. I don't think that is a correct assumption. If you look at the charter it does allow us to oversee certain aspects of implementation
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> I remain extremely skeptical about this for the reasons I have explained
>>> earlier. Those in favor should propose concrete language for a revised charter.
>>> This language should describe and limit the proposed purview and actions of
>>> the group as well as specify the point in time when this group will disband.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> On 8.10.15 13:13 , Narelle Clark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> in our face to face meeting in LA, we decided to defer the discussion
>>>> regarding what role - if any - the ICG should play during the
>>>> implementation phase of the transition. Alissa also kicked off the
>>>> discussion on the list. Here are some of my thoughts to guide us
>>>> through to Dublin.
>>>>
>>>> In the comments submitted to the ICG, the Internet Society pointed out:
>>>>
>>>> "We would like to draw attention to the need for timely resolution of
>>>> outstanding issues with regards to the implementation of the various
>>>> processes, mechanisms and rules that relate to IANA. Details related
>>>> to the structure of the new Post-Transition IANA (PTI) and the various
>>>> bodies supporting it (e.g. CSC, IFR, etc.), implementation aspects of
>>>> the CCWG proposal (as it relates to IANA), a plan to successfully
>>>> conclude the SLAs, and a resolution of IANA-related intellectual
>>>> property rights have yet to be fully fleshed out. We urge the
>>>> community to determine:
>>>>
>>>> *         How these implementation details will be addressed in a timely
>>>> fashion to the satisfaction of all communities in a way that continues
>>>> to meet the principles set forth by NTIA; and,
>>>>
>>>> *         How all the communities will remain involved in the
>>>> implementation of the new structure in an appropriate manner."
>>>>
>>>> There is no denying the fact that a major part of the transition is
>>>> implementation. I would like to argue that a sound transition
>>>> implementation process is actually as important as having a complete
>>>> and robust proposal. At this stage I do not believe we have one.
>>>>
>>>> A major part of the transition is oversight: the system that
>>>> ultimately replaces the oversight of the US government. I think we all
>>>> agree that as a group we are responsible for ensuring that the IANA
>>>> functions continue to operate in a reliable, stable and predictable
>>>> way. This means a design that is able to deliver and meet the
>>>> expectations and needs of the IANA customers. I do not believe that
>>>> this is achieved simply by saying that we have a full proposal, when
>>>> there is clearly a gap arising from the status of the accountability model.
>>>>
>>>> As this group has repeatedly discussed, what the current proposal
>>>> foresees is that, for the purposes of the IETF and the RIRs, ICANN
>>>> will continue to operate as the IFO; ICANN, would therefore
>>>> subcontract this responsibility to a new PTI. The names community will
>>>> contract directly with PTI. So, in effect, PTI will be the entity
>>>> responsible for maintaining and operating the IANA functions. PTI,
>>>> however, is a new entity that will have to be established from scratch.
>>>>
>>>> And here is the gap.
>>>>
>>>> Were the US government to sign off on the transition and with the
>>>> various groups - IANAPlan, CRISP and CWG (the latter disbanded) - who
>>>> will make sure that the setting up of PTI and the various supporting
>>>> bodies is done in a manner that ensures the stability of the system?
>>>> How can we - as the Internet community - ensure that the new system
>>>> supports the ongoing performance of IANA?
>>>>
>>>> I think that there is a role for us. This body is the only one
>>>> currently in existence that is fully representative of the communities
>>>> and one that would not have the learning curve.
>>>>
>>>> We all have a vested interest in ensuring that IANA continues to
>>>> operate the way it does today - i.e. without any interruptions or
>>>> issues of stability. I am not suggesting that we should micromanage
>>>> the implementation process - rather that we could perhaps take the
>>>> role of some sort of an advisory body that will meet and intervene if
>>>> and when it considers that the implementation details fail to meet the
>>>> standards of performance expected for IANA. Indeed, to provide a form of
>>> oversight.
>>>> I am aware that this raises issues with our charter, however, given
>>>> how lightweight the approach I am suggesting should be, this would
>>>> require nothing more than a minor adjustment. This would only need to
>>>> be in place until such time as PTI exists and back-to-back contracts
>>>> (between the IETF, RIRs, ICANN and PTI) are in place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the community would need to be in support of such a thing,
>>>> and a period of public comment would be called for.
>>>>
>>>> The situation at present is to my mind more than a little serious. I
>>>> would therefore like to ask you to consider this in good faith.
>>>>
>>>> What I am suggesting is a very light weight and high level engagement
>>>> plan that will allow us to see through this transition. We all know
>>>> just how important this is, and the need for careful, cross-community
>>>> oversight until the entire system is in place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Narelle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Narelle Clark
>>>> Director of Operations - Deputy CEO
>>>> *Australian Communications *
>>>>
>>>> *Consumer Action Network*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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