[Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Wed Oct 21 15:13:24 UTC 2015


Dear all,

I’ve been consulting further with Alan and our RIR colleagues on these implementation questions.

Three points:

1. Considering the components of numbers community plan, and the progress we have been making on implementation, the RIRs do not see any need for additional coordination mechanisms during the implementation process.

2. We do expect a process of regular reporting from ICANN on progress during the implementation process next year.   Likewise, we will be reporting regularly to the numbers community.

3. We expect the ICG to be conclude its work with the approval of the transition plan by the NTIA.

Thanks,

Paul.


On 22 Oct 2015, at 0:43, Jari Arkko wrote:

> A couple of points.
>
> First, agree that there are several topics and several teams working together here. For instance, I feel that an IETF-ICANN SLA is something that we do between the ICANN and the IETF, and we won’t be needing too many other parties in that discussion. And the IPR topic is something that I think the three communities need to work on a requirements level, until the matter can be turned over to our admins and lawyers. PTI is something that is largely a matter of ICANN implementing, and then checking with CWG that they are happy. Although the rest of us may benefit from understanding status.
>
> I think I’d emphasise the role of the OCs in this. Not all of the effort is on IANA (or ICANN), even if they obvious are impacted in most if it not all issues.
>
> On priorities, I think it is actually simpler than the thickness of the document may let us to believe. Two communities have very small operational changes, changes being focused mostly on things like agreements. In some cases those agreements already exist and just await signing. I have a difficulty imagining any of those issues are going to be an issue for prioritisation. A bulk of the bigger changes are due CWG’s plan, quite appropriately, because more work needed there. But I think this also implies that the discussion between the priority of those various changes is probably something to be had between CWG and IANA. Subsidiarity principle.
>
> So I think I’m roughly where I was before: not opposed to someone like the ICG or a new group doing high-level tracking. But 99.5% of the work is in naturally forming groups, of different compositions. I believe we the iCG should direct as much of the work to be done as low in the organisation as possible. Also, should there be issues or disagreements, I also believe that the OCs are more than capable of raising issues to the rest of us or even public as needed.
>
> (And for the record, I’m involved in setting up or participating in many of these discussions. We’ve been active on public and private discussions around next steps in IPR discussions, for instance.)
>
> Jari
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3582 bytes
Desc: S/MIME digital signature
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151022/ef384e1b/attachment.p7s>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list