[Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Patrik
Thank you very much for your message
See reply as below :
 Considering the need to send a clear message to ICG regarding the
Transition process, including the  need and role of the operating
communities in rejecting the IANA Budget.

Can you please expand on this. Who is to send a message to whom regarding
IANA Budget, and why would that message go to ICG, and even if it is, why
would this message passing be something to be discussed in ICG?
1. ICG sends message to CCWG
P2.lease kindly look at Board's Comment on Recemmendation 4 in section 1b)
" Board's comments and supporting rationale on IANA Budget"
in which it is indicated that the operating communities  who are already
affected by the IANA Function Budget are the ONLY WHO HAVE SAY on IANA
FUNCION BUDGET. The Board mentioned four entities: gTLD Registries,
Regional Internet Registries ( RIRs) ,ccTLD rEGISTRIES , and IETF...
Three of these four entities are already in the 3SOs ( ccNSO,GNSO and ASO )
However. IETF is not.
This issue was preliminary discussed for the first round and will be
discussed for the second; perhaps the last round on Thursday 14 January.
The preliniary discussion almost recognized that IETF should be 7 is
represented by IAB would be involved .This has not yet been
confirmed.Moreover, that discussion DID NOT agreed that the rejection of
the IANA Busget should only be done by these four entities without
involving the entitre participating SOs /ACs ) either 5 or 4 ,depending on
GACdecision yet to be taken)
For these reasons ICG may wish to emphacise the role of IETF EITHER
DIRECTLY OR THROUGH iab IN THE PROCESS MENTIONED ABOVE.

 Let me, as chair of SSAC, say that messages regarding IANA Budget is
already passed to CCWG, for example in the form of SAC-076 where SSAC as
one of the chartering organizations said the following:

> The SSAC advises that any process that empowers the Community to reject a
part or the whole of the IANA Budget must be implemented in such a way as
to ensure the stable and continuous delivery of the IANA Functions.

The discussion is far more advancing from the time that such information
was provided by SSAC to CCWG many months ago. Thus we need to take into
account the latest développent of the matter

 And I really hope CCWG take words like that from the chartering
organizations seriously. If not, we have a completely different kind of
problem with the process.

some Chartering organizations have not yet provided their comments to the
3rd proposal  as the formal deadline is 21 January 2016.
I do not know whether ssac will review its initial comments or not.
Regards
Kavouss


2016-01-10 9:44 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:

> Many thanks Alissa ..
> The attached ccNSO council statement, on the 3rd draft proposal of the
> CCWG on ICANN Accountability, was shared on the CCWG mailing list ..
> If you and colleagues agree, it would be good if someone could provide us
> with further details .. or is it already part of agenda item 1 below?
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:10 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda
>
> Here is a proposed agenda for our call on Jan 13:
>
> 1. Update on CCWG work (CCWG liaisons)
> 2. Potential ICG meeting at ICANN 55 (Chairs)
>
> Best,
> Alissa
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160110/1ef949b3/attachment.html>