[Internal-cg] transition proposal v5

Thu Oct 22 07:18:43 UTC 2015

Elise,

the executive summary should summarise what is proposed to occur as a
result of the transition. So this language is good and should stay.

Daniel

On 22.10.15 9:11 , Elise Gerich wrote:
> Alissa,
> Thanks for pointing out the confirmations from the other two
> communities.  Given those confirmations, is there a reason that this is
> stated as a requirement of the three proposals in the Executive Summary
> instead of brought up in the “Compatibility and interoperability”
> section with some language such as has been drafted to describe the
> compatibility of the IPR issue which was also proposed explicitly by a
> single Operational Community?
> 
> Thanks,
> -- Elise 
> 
> 
> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:16 AM
> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>>
> Cc: Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com <mailto:mundy at tislabs.com>>,
> "internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>"
> <internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5
> 
>     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
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 