[Internal-cg] transition proposal v5

Elise Gerich elise.gerich at icann.org
Thu Oct 22 05:23:29 UTC 2015


In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ¹ email
states:

> ³Under the combined transition proposal the administrative staff and related
> resources, processes, data, and know-how associated with all of the IANA
> functions currently covered by the NTIA contract would be legally transferred
> to PTI.  ICANN would contract with the PTI for the performance of the naming
> functions."

Did I miss something in the protocol parameters¹ and numbers¹ communities
proposals?  From my reading of their proposals as well as the summary in
paragraphs X007 and X008, neither of those communities proposed that the
administrative staff, etc. would be legally transferred to PTI.  I agree
this is a pragmatic implementation approach, it is  just that I do not see
that approach documented in the numbers and protocol parameters proposals.

Is this an ICG interpretation of what should happen rather than what is
specified in the two individual proposals?

-- Elise 


From:  Internal-cg <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org> on behalf of Russ Mundy
<mundy at tislabs.com>
Date:  Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM
To:  "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Cc:  Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>
Subject:  Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5

> I¹ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively) new
> History of IANA section (para¹s 02-06).
> 
> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don¹t have any
> further changes to suggest.
> 
> In the History section, I¹ve made several readability changes in paragraphs 04
> & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others disagree with the changes, I¹m
> not wedded to these words so they can be further improved or reverted if the
> group would prefers.
> 
> I did spot one small factual error in the History section that I think I¹ve
> corrected, i.e., the contract that was awarded in 2000 is not the one being
> replaced by this transition, rather, it is the contract that was awarded 2 Jul
> 2012 - I think that adding ³a subsequent² to line 9 of 04 corrects the error.
> 
> I¹ve placed a version titled:
> IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg-mundy.docx in Dropbox.
> 
> RussM
> 
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
> wrote:
> 
>>  Signed PGP part
>>  I have read the executive summary carefully and suggest two minor
>>  edits dropping text. If they are not easily agreed, drop them and move o
>>  n.
>>  
>>  https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Combined%20Proposal?previ
>>  ew=IANA-transition-proposal-v5-karrenberg.docx
>>  
>>  I also suggest a *major* edit to the final paragraphs, the "ICG
>>  Recommendations." This is the most important part of the executive
>>  summary and need to be a strong and clear statement. I believe we
>>  deserve better than we have now and suggest we say just this:
>>  
>>  X031 The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all
>>  parties to implement it.
>>  
>>  X032 The ICG will transmit this proposal to the ICANN board for
>>  submission to NTIA as soon as the CWG has confirmed that its
>>  requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met..
>>  
>>  
>>  Daniel
>>  
>>  On 20.10.15 23:28 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>  > I walked through the History Section to clean up the language a
>>>  > bit.
>>>  >
>>>  > The -v5 now has red-line that marks my changes.
>>>  >
>>>  > paf
>>>  >
>>>  > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:07, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>  >
>>>>  >> Updated proposal attached. Dropbox:
>>>>  >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5
>>  .docx?dl=0
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>
>>  <https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v
>>  5.docx?dl=0>
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>
>>  Edits made:
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> - Deleted mentions of public comments from exec summary (except
>>>>  >> the two people wanted to retain) - Edited and aligned all
>>>>  >> references to CCWG dependency (per email thread started by
>>>>  >> Daniel) - Added history section starting with paragraph 02 (per
>>>>  >> Patrik) - Updated Figure 4 pie chart to reflect correct
>>>>  >> statistics (per Lynn) - Edited implementation bullet item
>>>>  >> related to issue resolution mechanisms (per Martin)
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> Alissa
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> _______________________________________________ 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
> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151022/0a0af577/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151022/0a0af577/attachment.p7s>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list