[Internal-cg] Proposal for final review

Wed Oct 28 20:00:07 UTC 2015

Re para 98 I could agree with Milton.
Reading para X028, I don’t get tempted of this kind of interpretation. The text just says that the communities satisfaction with the IANA performance will not be impacted – which to my knowledge is intended.

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Mueller, Milton L 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:43 PM
To: Alissa Cooper ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review

All:

I went through this document as quickly as I could. It’s in great shape overall. I made some minor edits to the clean version in the attached draft, with tracking turned on. There are a couple of substantive changes I propose which I will discuss here: 

Para X028 currently says:

“All three communities determined that the global customers and partners of the IANA services and their communities of stakeholders are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA functions by the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is not expected to impact that.”

This gives I think the (false) impression that the proposal just keeps everything the same and the customers didn’t want any change. However, all 3 communities also made it clear that they want to be able to choose (or continue to choose) a different IFO should the need arise, a capability which does _not_ currently exist for numbers and names, but which is created by this proposal. Also if the customers wanted no change then why did the proposal create PTI?

So on p. 28-9, paragraph 98 I edited the end of paragraph 98 to read:

98           All three communities determined that the global customers and partners of the IANA services, including the gTLD and ccTLD registries and their communities of stakeholders; the RIRs; and the IETF are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA functions by the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is structured such that the PTI will continue to provide the IANA functions to its global customers and partners post-transition in essentially the same manner as ICANN’s IANA department does today. In the names community, IANA customers expressed support for a clearer separation between ICANN as policy developer and IANA as implementer, and the PTI separation accomplishes this. Also, the proposal makes it possible for each operational community to choose a different IFO should the need arise, a capability which does not currently exist for numbers and names. Thus the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners should continue to be satisfied after the transition.

Also, on p. 30, para 108 implementation list I believe we need to add:

•             Transfer of the IANA-related intellectual property and domain names to the entity.

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:19 PM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review

Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29.

If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28. 

Thanks,

Alissa

Dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20151028/dbcf46f1/attachment.html>