[Internal-cg] transition proposal v5

Wu Kuo-Wei kuoweiwu at gmail.com
Thu Oct 22 15:08:37 UTC 2015


Fair. That is what I asked board to prepare that.

Kuo Wu

> Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> 於 2015年10月22日 22:42 寫道:
> 
> Kuo:
> 
> I'm sure you misspoke here.  The Board has already promised to send the proposal without modification.  However, they do have the opportunity to attach a cover letter.  They should work on that letter as soon as the proposal is finished -- just a few days from now.
> 
> The Board already sent comments during the public review, so the Exec Summary and Part 0 are the only parts that have changed since their last review  It should be a simple and straightforward review.
> 
> Russ
> 
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:06 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote:
> 
>> Daniel,
>> 
>> Yes, that is what we agree. 
>> 
>> I already inform board and staff to study ICG draft carefully, and start to review the draft (hopefully, not much change for the final proposal). If ICG like to know board position before we make our comment, you are welcome to ask (which is ICG’s decision). 
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Kuo Wu
>> 
>>> Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> 於 2015年10月22日 19:48 寫道:
>>> 
>>> finer points indeed. i agree that sending it to the ICANN CEO would not
>>> be appropriate. our chair should send it to the ICANN board chair with a
>>> cover letter asking to transmit it expeditiously to NTIA as agreed.
>>> 
>>> Kuo has said quite clearly he would welcome us to ask the board to take
>>> a look at our draft after this round of editing. I support that. Our
>>> chair should write a note to the ICANN board chair to that effect.
>>> 
>>> This is not to give the ICANN board any special status. It is intended
>>> so that we know about possible comments they might make to NTIA so that
>>> we have the opportunity to consider them before they are made. i am not
>>> suggesting that we ask the ICANN board to comment to *us*.
>>> 
>>> In essence all I am suggesting is to take advantage of the fact that
>>> there is time now, before CCWG concludes.
>>> 
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 22.10.15 13:30 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>>>> Daniel,
>>>> 
>>>> exactly. I see no difference at all between your summary (below), and my proposal, made early on:
>>>> - to NTIA via ICANN Board. I simply made clear that it should be from ICG Chair to NTIA Administrator, c/o ICANN Board Chair. I proposed this clarification because some colleagues had suggested sending it to ICANN CEO, which would not be appropriate, because ICG is independent from ICANN. 
>>>> - Board shall not bring any change to our Transition Proposal, but in its transmission letter to NTIA, of course it can include anything it wishes.
>>>> 
>>>> Jean-Jacques.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
>>>> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
>>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 11:45:22
>>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5
>>>> 
>>>> Jean-Jaques,
>>>> 
>>>> we had agreed that we would transmit to NTIA via the ICANN board and the
>>>> ICANN board has committed to the time they would take to do this, 14
>>>> days if i remember correctly. The ICANN board has also stated that they
>>>> will transmit the proposal unchangwd but that they might add comments.
>>>> 
>>>> Personally I would also be fine with what you propose, but in my
>>>> recollection we clearly agreed to the process of transmission via the
>>>> ICANN board.
>>>> 
>>>> Assuming that we stick to that agreement, we should aim for no
>>>> substantive comments from the ICANN board. I would like us to ask the
>>>> board to take note of our porposal as soon as we finish this editing
>>>> round. This would  prevent any last minute surprises.
>>>> 
>>>> Daniel
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 22.10.15 11:26 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>>>>> Daniel & All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> we had clearly indicated that the ICANN Board could, like any other component of the global Internet community, make known its position through the Public Comment mechanism. So I don't think if would be appropriate to provide a special, additional mechanism for the Board. As was remarked several times in our meetings, we have two Liaisons, and that is the normal channel to the Board and to IANA, in the same way that each one of us communicates with her/his community.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Several months ago, when we discussed how to send our Transition Proposal to the NTIA, and based on best international practices, I had proposed that the ICG Chair address the Proposal, with a letter, to the Administrator of the NTIA, c/o the Chair of the ICANN Board. A copy can be sent to the ICANN CEO.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jean-Jacques.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
>>>>> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 22 Octobre 2015 09:57:44
>>>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] transition proposal v5
>>>>> 
>>>>> Maybe ICG should formally ask the board?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 22.10.15 10:49 , joseph alhadeff wrote:
>>>>>> Kuo:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In our earlier discussions, hadn't it been agreed that ICANN Board would
>>>>>> actively participate in the comment and evaluation process? While we
>>>>>> would not expect a formal sign off, an indication that the Board was
>>>>>> comfortable with the proposal in its current state would be useful in
>>>>>> clarifying that our work is nearly done.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 10/22/2015 3:05 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 




More information about the Internal-cg mailing list