[Internal-cg] transition proposal v5

Thu Oct 22 07:49:19 UTC 2015

Hi Elise,

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I was not proposing to duplicate information in Part 0, but suggesting to delete the information from Part 0 and only state the info in the section about compatibility and interoperability .

Hmm, I’m confused now. I don’t know how we can remove text from Part 0 but add it to the section on compatibility and interoperability, which is in Part 0.

Is your suggestion to delete paragraph 24 (in Part 0, Section IV.B, “Post-Transition IANA”) and add text to Part 0, Section VI.C.1 (“Compatibility and Interoperability”)? If so, what would then go in Part 0, Section IV.B, which we agreed to add in Los Angeles given the need to clearly explain the nature of the PTI? I guess what I’m not understanding is, if we agreed to add an explicit section about the PTI, why we would move the core text explaining the PTI to a different section.

Thanks,
Alissa

> Of course, I was also suggesting that we revise the text itself and Daniel has responded he supports having the text as is in the Exec Summary.
> Thanks,
> -- Elise 
> 
> 
> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:21 AM
> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>>
> Cc: "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,
>> 
>> The text in the executive summary is the same as the text in Part 0, Section IV.B, where we describe the PTI. I don’t think we need to repeat it twice in Part 0.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>> 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 <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 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v5>
>>>>>>> .docx?dl=0
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjchlea1b0ammd0/IANA-transition-proposal-v <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/b35bb850/attachment.html>