[Internal-cg] transition proposal v5

Thu Oct 22 07:05:25 UTC 2015

I love to. We discuss it, but not all the members agree since waiting for CWG confirmation.

Kuo Wu

> Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> 於 2015年10月22日 15:02 寫道：
> 
> Kuo,
> 
> personally I hope that the ICANN board would take note of the ICG
> proposal once we are finished with this final editing round even before
> we are able to formally submit it. It would be unfortunate if the ICANN
> board would decide to add comments that weaken the proposal when it is
> transmitted to NTIA, especially comments that could be addressed by
> ICG/OCs  already now while we wait for CWG confirmation.
> 
> My personal thoughts
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 22.10.15 8:34 , Wu Kuo-Wei wrote:
>> Alissa and all,
>> 
>> ICANN board didn’t start to generate position yet since the final
>> proposal didn’t deliver to us yet. But we do talk about the IETF/RIRs
>> contract might transfer to PTI. We understand it. This is not the major
>> concern for us at this moment. We know the proposals from IANAPLAN and
>> CRISP better because they deliver earlier and almost no change (only the
>> SLA details need to discuss) since then.
>> 
>> Kuo Wu
>> 
>>> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> 於 2015年
>>> 10月22日 14:16 寫道：
>>> 
>>> Hi Elise,
>>> 
>>> We have had multiple confirmations from the other two communities that
>>> this approach is acceptable to them, in the public comments and
>>> elsewhere. It isn’t documented in the OC proposals because they were
>>> submitted before the PTI concept was invented.
>>> 
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:23 AM, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> In paragraph X009 the version of the executive summary in Russ’ email
>>>> states:
>>>> 
>>>>> “Under 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 parameters’ and numbers’
>>>> 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
>>>> <mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>> on behalf of Russ Mundy
>>>> <mundy at tislabs.com <mailto:mundy at tislabs.com>>
>>>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:26 AM
>>>> To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>"
>>>> <internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
>>>> Cc: Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com <mailto:mundy at tislabs.com>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5
>>>> 
>>>>> I’ve also carefully read the executive summary and the (relatively)
>>>>> new History of IANA section (para’s 02-06).
>>>>> 
>>>>> I like the changes Daniel suggestions to the exec summary and don’t
>>>>> have any further changes to suggest.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the History section, I’ve made several readability changes in
>>>>> paragraphs 04 & 05 that I think make them clearer. If others
>>>>> disagree with the changes, I’m 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 I’ve 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 “a
>>>>> subsequent” to line 9 of 04 corrects the error.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’ve 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 <mailto: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:
>>>>>> X031The ICG unanimously supports this proposal and recommends to all
>>>>>> parties to implement it.
>>>>>> X032The 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> 