Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort, and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on the proposal.
The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting process.
Hi allICANN has released a draft process proposed for community discussion onthe IANA transition. A deadline of 8 May has been set for communityfeedback on this process.To view the draft process please visit:pr14-en.htmA short video from ICANN is also available here explaining the process andnext steps:While ICANN has requested all feedback on the process should be submittedto the ianatransition@icann.org mailing list, that does not precludediscussion on this APNIC mailing list. A summary of feedback from thislist will be submitted to ICANN.ThanksTony_______________________________________________IANAxfer mailing list
On 30/04/2014, at 10:35 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Tony and All,
While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned feedback for this draft process as APNIC? http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08ap...
Hi Masato and thanks for your queries.
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process. (while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are currently asked feedbacks)
Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?
APNIC staff's interpretation follows below.
The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort, and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on the proposal.
I believe that the intention here is for ICANN Board to act as an "umpire" to ensure that the process has been carried out correctly, but not to undertake a vote to actually approve the proposal.
You may ask how the ICANN board, as umpire, would decide that the process had not been followed; and I assume that a vote could be involved. But in that case the vote would be on the process and not the proposal.
The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting process.
I believe that this paragraph is intended to set ICANN on a equal footing with other affected parties. I think that each affected party (including ICANN) is expected to independently submit its endorsement of the proposal, to be communicated to the NTIA. But I agree that the reference to "formal voting" here is unclear and should be clarified.
Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed. (ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in May) We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from AP region without physical meeting.
This mailing list was established to allow exactly this kind of discussion and feedback; I expect that we will use it increasingly from this point onwards, and of course we will need to discuss this process during the September meeting in Brisbane.
Best regards
Paul.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/08 19:16, "Tony Smith" tony@apnic.net wrote:
Hi all
ICANN has released a draft process proposed for community discussion on the IANA transition. A deadline of 8 May has been set for community feedback on this process.
To view the draft process please visit:
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08a pr14-en.htm
A short video from ICANN is also available here explaining the process and next steps:
While ICANN has requested all feedback on the process should be submitted to the ianatransition@icann.org mailing list, that does not preclude discussion on this APNIC mailing list. A summary of feedback from this list will be submitted to ICANN.
Thanks Tony
IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
On 30/04/2014, at 2:22 PM, Pablo Hinojosa pablo@apnic.net wrote:
Seems that the ICANN Board won't be able to veto the proposal coming from the Steering Group — this is what it means that the SG proposal won't be put to a vote.
Also, each affected party and ICANN will have a chance to endorse this proposal: I think this also means that if, for example, NRO (or APNIC?) doesn't like one bit of the proposal, they can say that in their endorsement? -- I see it more like a ratification process.
I am including Tony here as well, in case we would like to engage in this discussion on ianaxfer email list.
I think if we say that we will work on the proposal as an affected party and that we are ok with the process, is enough. I don't have a strong concern over this process.
Pablo
From: Paul Wilson pwilson@apnic.net Date: Tuesday, 29 April 2014 8:31 PM To: Craig Ng craig@apnic.net, Pablo Hinojosa pablo@apnic.net Subject: Fwd: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process released
Thoughts?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com Subject: Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process released Date: 30 April 2014 10:35:50 AM AEST To: Tony Smith tony@apnic.net, "ianaxfer@apnic.net" ianaxfer@apnic.net
Tony and All,
While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned feedback for this draft process as APNIC? http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08ap...
IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process. (while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are currently asked feedbacks)
Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?
The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort, and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on the proposal.
The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting process.
Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed. (ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in May) We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from AP region without physical meeting.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/08 19:16, "Tony Smith" tony@apnic.net wrote:
Hi all
ICANN has released a draft process proposed for community discussion on the IANA transition. A deadline of 8 May has been set for community feedback on this process.
To view the draft process please visit:
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08a pr14-en.htm
A short video from ICANN is also available here explaining the process and next steps:
While ICANN has requested all feedback on the process should be submitted to the ianatransition@icann.org mailing list, that does not preclude discussion on this APNIC mailing list. A summary of feedback from this list will be submitted to ICANN.
Thanks Tony
IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
The IANA parameters fall into three categories: domain names, number resources, and other protocol parameters. While there is some overlap among these categories, they are distinct enough that each one has accrued its own community of interest. Domain names are generally but not exclusively of interest to the ICANN community; number resources are generally but not exclusively of interest to the RIR communities; and protocol parameters are generally but not exclusively of interest to the IETF community.The distinctions among these categories and their associated communities of interest are widely recognized and well understood. As the proposed process document notes, "[Because] the various affected parties of IANA have somewhat different needs, there is value in keeping the distinct discussions running in parallel, and not forcing either full synchronization or exactly the same end result on them." As such, we propose to divide the work immediately, asking each community to create and embark on a transparent process for developing a component of the transition proposal for its respective category.
On 30/04/2014, at 10:35 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@japan-telecom.com> wrote:Tony and All,While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned feedback for this draft process as APNIC?Hi Masato and thanks for your queries.Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process.(while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are currently asked feedbacks)Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?APNIC staff's interpretation follows below.The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort, and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on the proposal.I believe that the intention here is for ICANN Board to act as an "umpire" to ensure that the process has been carried out correctly, but not to undertake a vote to actually approve the proposal.You may ask how the ICANN board, as umpire, would decide that the process had not been followed; and I assume that a vote could be involved. But in that case the vote would be on the process and not the proposal.The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting process.I believe that this paragraph is intended to set ICANN on a equal footing with other affected parties. I think that each affected party (including ICANN) is expected to independently submit its endorsement of the proposal, to be communicated to the NTIA. But I agree that the reference to "formal voting" here is unclear and should be clarified.Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed.(ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in May)We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from AP region without physical meeting.This mailing list was established to allow exactly this kind of discussion and feedback; I expect that we will use it increasingly from this point onwards, and of course we will need to discuss this process during the September meeting in Brisbane.Best regardsPaul.Rgs,Masato YamanishiOn 14/04/08 19:16, "Tony Smith" <tony@apnic.net> wrote:Hi allICANN has released a draft process proposed for community discussion onthe IANA transition. A deadline of 8 May has been set for communityfeedback on this process.To view the draft process please visit:pr14-en.htmA short video from ICANN is also available here explaining the process andnext steps:While ICANN has requested all feedback on the process should be submittedto the ianatransition@icann.org mailing list, that does not precludediscussion on this APNIC mailing list. A summary of feedback from thislist will be submitted to ICANN.ThanksTony_______________________________________________IANAxfer mailing list_______________________________________________IANAxfer mailing listOn 30/04/2014, at 2:22 PM, Pablo Hinojosa <pablo@apnic.net> wrote:Seems that the ICANN Board won't be able to veto the proposal coming from the Steering Group — this is what it means that the SG proposal won't be put to a vote.Also, each affected party and ICANN will have a chance to endorse this proposal: I think this also means that if, for example, NRO (or APNIC?) doesn't like one bit of the proposal, they can say that in their endorsement? -- I see it more like a ratification process.I am including Tony here as well, in case we would like to engage in this discussion on ianaxfer email list.---I think if we say that we will work on the proposal as an affected party and that we are ok with the process, is enough. I don't have a strong concern over this process.PabloFrom: Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net>Date: Tuesday, 29 April 2014 8:31 PMTo: Craig Ng <craig@apnic.net>, Pablo Hinojosa <pablo@apnic.net>Subject: Fwd: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process releasedThoughts?Begin forwarded message:From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@japan-telecom.com>Subject: Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process releasedDate: 30 April 2014 10:35:50 AM AESTTony and All,While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned feedback for this draft process as APNIC?IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process.(while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are currently asked feedbacks)Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort, and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on the proposal.The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting process.Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed.(ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in May)We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from AP region without physical meeting.Rgs,Masato YamanishiOn 14/04/08 19:16, "Tony Smith" <tony@apnic.net> wrote:Hi allICANN has released a draft process proposed for community discussion onthe IANA transition. A deadline of 8 May has been set for communityfeedback on this process.To view the draft process please visit:pr14-en.htmA short video from ICANN is also available here explaining the process andnext steps:While ICANN has requested all feedback on the process should be submittedto the ianatransition@icann.org mailing list, that does not precludediscussion on this APNIC mailing list. A summary of feedback from thislist will be submitted to ICANN.ThanksTony_______________________________________________IANAxfer mailing list_______________________________________________IANAxfer mailing list
Paul and Tony,
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
Do you have any update for the joint response among NRO? The deadline is May 8th midnight in UTC.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/29 22:02, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
On 30/04/2014, at 10:35 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Tony and All,
While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned feedback for this draft process as APNIC?
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-0 8apr14-en.htm
Hi Masato and thanks for your queries.
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process. (while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are currently asked feedbacks)
Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?
APNIC staff's interpretation follows below.
The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort, and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on the proposal.
I believe that the intention here is for ICANN Board to act as an "umpire" to ensure that the process has been carried out correctly, but not to undertake a vote to actually approve the proposal.
You may ask how the ICANN board, as umpire, would decide that the process had not been followed; and I assume that a vote could be involved. But in that case the vote would be on the process and not the proposal.
The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting process.
I believe that this paragraph is intended to set ICANN on a equal footing with other affected parties. I think that each affected party (including ICANN) is expected to independently submit its endorsement of the proposal, to be communicated to the NTIA. But I agree that the reference to "formal voting" here is unclear and should be clarified.
Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed. (ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in May) We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from AP region without physical meeting.
This mailing list was established to allow exactly this kind of discussion and feedback; I expect that we will use it increasingly from this point onwards, and of course we will need to discuss this process during the September meeting in Brisbane.
Best regards
Paul.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/08 19:16, "Tony Smith" tony@apnic.net wrote:
Hi all
ICANN has released a draft process proposed for community discussion on the IANA transition. A deadline of 8 May has been set for community feedback on this process.
To view the draft process please visit:
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal- 08a pr14-en.htm
A short video from ICANN is also available here explaining the process and next steps:
While ICANN has requested all feedback on the process should be submitted to the ianatransition@icann.org mailing list, that does not preclude discussion on this APNIC mailing list. A summary of feedback from this list will be submitted to ICANN.
Thanks Tony
IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
On 30/04/2014, at 2:22 PM, Pablo Hinojosa pablo@apnic.net wrote:
Seems that the ICANN Board won't be able to veto the proposal coming from the Steering Group — this is what it means that the SG proposal won't be put to a vote.
Also, each affected party and ICANN will have a chance to endorse this proposal: I think this also means that if, for example, NRO (or APNIC?) doesn't like one bit of the proposal, they can say that in their endorsement? -- I see it more like a ratification process.
I am including Tony here as well, in case we would like to engage in this discussion on ianaxfer email list.
I think if we say that we will work on the proposal as an affected party and that we are ok with the process, is enough. I don't have a strong concern over this process.
Pablo
From: Paul Wilson pwilson@apnic.net Date: Tuesday, 29 April 2014 8:31 PM To: Craig Ng craig@apnic.net, Pablo Hinojosa pablo@apnic.net Subject: Fwd: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process released
Thoughts?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com Subject: Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process released Date: 30 April 2014 10:35:50 AM AEST To: Tony Smith tony@apnic.net, "ianaxfer@apnic.net" ianaxfer@apnic.net
Tony and All,
While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned feedback for this draft process as APNIC?
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal- 08apr14-en.htm
IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process. (while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are currently asked feedbacks)
Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?
The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort, and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on the proposal.
The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting process.
Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed. (ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in May) We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from AP region without physical meeting.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/08 19:16, "Tony Smith" tony@apnic.net wrote:
Hi all
ICANN has released a draft process proposed for community discussion on the IANA transition. A deadline of 8 May has been set for community feedback on this process.
To view the draft process please visit:
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal -08a pr14-en.htm
A short video from ICANN is also available here explaining the process and next steps:
While ICANN has requested all feedback on the process should be submitted to the ianatransition@icann.org mailing list, that does not preclude discussion on this APNIC mailing list. A summary of feedback from this list will be submitted to ICANN.
Thanks Tony
IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
Masato, here is a draft response which is currently being considered at the moment.
Comments from community members including yourself would be more than welcome, in the short time available.
Paul.
====
DRAFT
We have considered ICANN's Call for Public Input in relation to the transition of IANA stewardship, and the associated scoping document, which are located at:
[i] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08ap...
[ii] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping- 08apr 14-en.pdf
We have also considered other contributions, in particular that of the IAB, which is located at:
[iii] http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2014/04/iab-response-to-20140408-2...
We offer the following comments in response to these documents:
1. We support the proposed scope[ii] of the transition proposal, which excludes IANA policy development processes, the question of the IANA operator, and any issues which are not within the scope of IANA functions. Such questions remain important and may continue to be discussed elsewhere, and they should remain unaffected by the development of the transition proposal, or by the transition of IANA oversight responsibilities. At the same time, the transition proposal should in no way limit the future solutions or options which are available in any of these areas.
2. We support the guiding principles and mechanisms as proposed in [i]. We agree that these are consistent both with established norms for such processes within our communities, and with the large majority of inputs received so far from the ICANN community.
3. We agree that the ICANN Board must respect and adopt the outcome of the entire development process, as reported by the “Steering Group”, without a vote; providing that the process has been conducted in accordance with the scope, principles and mechanisms as proposed.
4. Finally, we support the comments from the IAB, and in particular we agree:
- That each of the 3 communities of interest in IANA functions be offered the primary responsibility to produce respective transition plans, in accordance both with their own established processes, and with the defined scope, principles and mechanisms. In the case of the IP addressing community, encompassing 5 regional communities, there are well-defined policy development and oversight mechanisms existing at the regional and global levels, which would be applied with complete transparency on this process. - That the “Steering Group” act and be referred to as a coordinating group with the primary role and responsibilities as proposed by the IAB. - That the “Steering Group” operate on the basis of rough consensus, rather than voting.
We offer this input as a constructive contribution to this process, and we look forward to ICANN’s final proposal for the process of developing the transition proposal. However regardless of that proposal, we will undertake comprehensive consultations within our own communities over the coming year, in an effort to reach broad consensus on stewardship arrangements which will best ensure the future stability, security, transparency and integrity of IANA functions, particularly in relation to IP addressing.
On 06/05/2014, at 9:47 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul and Tony,
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
Do you have any update for the joint response among NRO? The deadline is May 8th midnight in UTC.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/29 22:02, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
On 30/04/2014, at 10:35 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Tony and All,
While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned feedback for this draft process as APNIC?
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-0 8apr14-en.htm
Hi Masato and thanks for your queries.
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process. (while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are currently asked feedbacks)
Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?
APNIC staff's interpretation follows below.
The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort, and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on the proposal.
I believe that the intention here is for ICANN Board to act as an "umpire" to ensure that the process has been carried out correctly, but not to undertake a vote to actually approve the proposal.
You may ask how the ICANN board, as umpire, would decide that the process had not been followed; and I assume that a vote could be involved. But in that case the vote would be on the process and not the proposal.
The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting process.
I believe that this paragraph is intended to set ICANN on a equal footing with other affected parties. I think that each affected party (including ICANN) is expected to independently submit its endorsement of the proposal, to be communicated to the NTIA. But I agree that the reference to "formal voting" here is unclear and should be clarified.
Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed. (ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in May) We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from AP region without physical meeting.
This mailing list was established to allow exactly this kind of discussion and feedback; I expect that we will use it increasingly from this point onwards, and of course we will need to discuss this process during the September meeting in Brisbane.
Best regards
Paul.
Paul,
Thank you for sharing the draft.
I can support it as written.
It is trivial, but I think "Web-based platform" in proposed mechanisms is a little bit odd, since it is too details compared with other proposed mechanisms and also I'm not sure whether it includes e-mail based discussion which we often use. Anyway, I think we don't need to mention it as it is trivial.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/05/05 19:21, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
Masato, here is a draft response which is currently being considered at the moment.
Comments from community members including yourself would be more than welcome, in the short time available.
Paul.
====
DRAFT
We have considered ICANN's Call for Public Input in relation to the transition of IANA stewardship, and the associated scoping document, which are located at:
[i] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08 apr14-en.htm
[ii] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping- 08apr 14-en.pdf
We have also considered other contributions, in particular that of the IAB, which is located at:
[iii] http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2014/04/iab-response-to-20140408 -20140428a.pdf
We offer the following comments in response to these documents:
- We support the proposed scope[ii] of the transition proposal, which
excludes IANA policy development processes, the question of the IANA operator, and any issues which are not within the scope of IANA functions. Such questions remain important and may continue to be discussed elsewhere, and they should remain unaffected by the development of the transition proposal, or by the transition of IANA oversight responsibilities. At the same time, the transition proposal should in no way limit the future solutions or options which are available in any of these areas.
- We support the guiding principles and mechanisms as proposed in [i].
We agree that these are consistent both with established norms for such processes within our communities, and with the large majority of inputs received so far from the ICANN community.
- We agree that the ICANN Board must respect and adopt the outcome of
the entire development process, as reported by the “Steering Group”, without a vote; providing that the process has been conducted in accordance with the scope, principles and mechanisms as proposed.
- Finally, we support the comments from the IAB, and in particular we
agree:
That each of the 3 communities of interest in IANA functions beoffered the primary responsibility to produce respective transition plans, in accordance both with their own established processes, and with the defined scope, principles and mechanisms. In the case of the IP addressing community, encompassing 5 regional communities, there are well-defined policy development and oversight mechanisms existing at the regional and global levels, which would be applied with complete transparency on this process.
That the “Steering Group” act and be referred to as acoordinating group with the primary role and responsibilities as proposed by the IAB.
That the “Steering Group” operate on the basis of roughconsensus, rather than voting.
We offer this input as a constructive contribution to this process, and we look forward to ICANN’s final proposal for the process of developing the transition proposal. However regardless of that proposal, we will undertake comprehensive consultations within our own communities over the coming year, in an effort to reach broad consensus on stewardship arrangements which will best ensure the future stability, security, transparency and integrity of IANA functions, particularly in relation to IP addressing.
On 06/05/2014, at 9:47 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul and Tony,
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
Do you have any update for the joint response among NRO? The deadline is May 8th midnight in UTC.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/29 22:02, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
On 30/04/2014, at 10:35 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Tony and All,
While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned feedback for this draft process as APNIC?
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal -0 8apr14-en.htm
Hi Masato and thanks for your queries.
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process. (while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are currently asked feedbacks)
Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?
APNIC staff's interpretation follows below.
The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort, and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on the proposal.
I believe that the intention here is for ICANN Board to act as an "umpire" to ensure that the process has been carried out correctly, but not to undertake a vote to actually approve the proposal.
You may ask how the ICANN board, as umpire, would decide that the process had not been followed; and I assume that a vote could be involved. But in that case the vote would be on the process and not the proposal.
The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting process.
I believe that this paragraph is intended to set ICANN on a equal footing with other affected parties. I think that each affected party (including ICANN) is expected to independently submit its endorsement of the proposal, to be communicated to the NTIA. But I agree that the reference to "formal voting" here is unclear and should be clarified.
Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed. (ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in May) We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from AP region without physical meeting.
This mailing list was established to allow exactly this kind of discussion and feedback; I expect that we will use it increasingly from this point onwards, and of course we will need to discuss this process during the September meeting in Brisbane.
Best regards
Paul.
On 07/05/2014, at 1:28 PM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul,
Thank you for sharing the draft.
I can support it as written.
It is trivial, but I think "Web-based platform" in proposed mechanisms is a little bit odd, since it is too details compared with other proposed mechanisms and also I'm not sure whether it includes e-mail based discussion which we often use. Anyway, I think we don't need to mention it as it is trivial.
I had the same thought in fact. I think they are saying that the process should be fully accessible online, which is of course important.
Thanks.
Paul.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/05/05 19:21, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
Masato, here is a draft response which is currently being considered at the moment.
Comments from community members including yourself would be more than welcome, in the short time available.
Paul.
====
DRAFT
We have considered ICANN's Call for Public Input in relation to the transition of IANA stewardship, and the associated scoping document, which are located at:
[i] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08 apr14-en.htm
[ii] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping- 08apr 14-en.pdf
We have also considered other contributions, in particular that of the IAB, which is located at:
[iii] http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2014/04/iab-response-to-20140408 -20140428a.pdf
We offer the following comments in response to these documents:
- We support the proposed scope[ii] of the transition proposal, which
excludes IANA policy development processes, the question of the IANA operator, and any issues which are not within the scope of IANA functions. Such questions remain important and may continue to be discussed elsewhere, and they should remain unaffected by the development of the transition proposal, or by the transition of IANA oversight responsibilities. At the same time, the transition proposal should in no way limit the future solutions or options which are available in any of these areas.
- We support the guiding principles and mechanisms as proposed in [i].
We agree that these are consistent both with established norms for such processes within our communities, and with the large majority of inputs received so far from the ICANN community.
- We agree that the ICANN Board must respect and adopt the outcome of
the entire development process, as reported by the “Steering Group”, without a vote; providing that the process has been conducted in accordance with the scope, principles and mechanisms as proposed.
- Finally, we support the comments from the IAB, and in particular we
agree:
That each of the 3 communities of interest in IANA functions beoffered the primary responsibility to produce respective transition plans, in accordance both with their own established processes, and with the defined scope, principles and mechanisms. In the case of the IP addressing community, encompassing 5 regional communities, there are well-defined policy development and oversight mechanisms existing at the regional and global levels, which would be applied with complete transparency on this process.
That the “Steering Group” act and be referred to as acoordinating group with the primary role and responsibilities as proposed by the IAB.
That the “Steering Group” operate on the basis of roughconsensus, rather than voting.
We offer this input as a constructive contribution to this process, and we look forward to ICANN’s final proposal for the process of developing the transition proposal. However regardless of that proposal, we will undertake comprehensive consultations within our own communities over the coming year, in an effort to reach broad consensus on stewardship arrangements which will best ensure the future stability, security, transparency and integrity of IANA functions, particularly in relation to IP addressing.
On 06/05/2014, at 9:47 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul and Tony,
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
Do you have any update for the joint response among NRO? The deadline is May 8th midnight in UTC.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/29 22:02, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
On 30/04/2014, at 10:35 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Tony and All,
While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned feedback for this draft process as APNIC?
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal -0 8apr14-en.htm
Hi Masato and thanks for your queries.
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process. (while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are currently asked feedbacks)
Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?
APNIC staff's interpretation follows below.
The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort, and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on the proposal.
I believe that the intention here is for ICANN Board to act as an "umpire" to ensure that the process has been carried out correctly, but not to undertake a vote to actually approve the proposal.
You may ask how the ICANN board, as umpire, would decide that the process had not been followed; and I assume that a vote could be involved. But in that case the vote would be on the process and not the proposal.
The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting process.
I believe that this paragraph is intended to set ICANN on a equal footing with other affected parties. I think that each affected party (including ICANN) is expected to independently submit its endorsement of the proposal, to be communicated to the NTIA. But I agree that the reference to "formal voting" here is unclear and should be clarified.
Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed. (ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in May) We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from AP region without physical meeting.
This mailing list was established to allow exactly this kind of discussion and feedback; I expect that we will use it increasingly from this point onwards, and of course we will need to discuss this process during the September meeting in Brisbane.
Best regards
Paul.
Masato and all,
As you may have seen, a final version has now been submitted in the name of the NRO. It is attached here.
For this wishing to join ICANN's mailing list, send a "subscribe" message to
ianatransition-request@icann.org
And the archive is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/date.html
Thanks for your feedback.
Paul.
On 07/05/2014, at 1:28 PM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul,
Thank you for sharing the draft.
I can support it as written.
It is trivial, but I think "Web-based platform" in proposed mechanisms is a little bit odd, since it is too details compared with other proposed mechanisms and also I'm not sure whether it includes e-mail based discussion which we often use. Anyway, I think we don't need to mention it as it is trivial.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/05/05 19:21, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
Masato, here is a draft response which is currently being considered at the moment.
Comments from community members including yourself would be more than welcome, in the short time available.
Paul.
====
DRAFT
We have considered ICANN's Call for Public Input in relation to the transition of IANA stewardship, and the associated scoping document, which are located at:
[i] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08 apr14-en.htm
[ii] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping- 08apr 14-en.pdf
We have also considered other contributions, in particular that of the IAB, which is located at:
[iii] http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2014/04/iab-response-to-20140408 -20140428a.pdf
We offer the following comments in response to these documents:
- We support the proposed scope[ii] of the transition proposal, which
excludes IANA policy development processes, the question of the IANA operator, and any issues which are not within the scope of IANA functions. Such questions remain important and may continue to be discussed elsewhere, and they should remain unaffected by the development of the transition proposal, or by the transition of IANA oversight responsibilities. At the same time, the transition proposal should in no way limit the future solutions or options which are available in any of these areas.
- We support the guiding principles and mechanisms as proposed in [i].
We agree that these are consistent both with established norms for such processes within our communities, and with the large majority of inputs received so far from the ICANN community.
- We agree that the ICANN Board must respect and adopt the outcome of
the entire development process, as reported by the “Steering Group”, without a vote; providing that the process has been conducted in accordance with the scope, principles and mechanisms as proposed.
- Finally, we support the comments from the IAB, and in particular we
agree:
That each of the 3 communities of interest in IANA functions beoffered the primary responsibility to produce respective transition plans, in accordance both with their own established processes, and with the defined scope, principles and mechanisms. In the case of the IP addressing community, encompassing 5 regional communities, there are well-defined policy development and oversight mechanisms existing at the regional and global levels, which would be applied with complete transparency on this process.
That the “Steering Group” act and be referred to as acoordinating group with the primary role and responsibilities as proposed by the IAB.
That the “Steering Group” operate on the basis of roughconsensus, rather than voting.
We offer this input as a constructive contribution to this process, and we look forward to ICANN’s final proposal for the process of developing the transition proposal. However regardless of that proposal, we will undertake comprehensive consultations within our own communities over the coming year, in an effort to reach broad consensus on stewardship arrangements which will best ensure the future stability, security, transparency and integrity of IANA functions, particularly in relation to IP addressing.
On 06/05/2014, at 9:47 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul and Tony,
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
Do you have any update for the joint response among NRO? The deadline is May 8th midnight in UTC.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/29 22:02, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
On 30/04/2014, at 10:35 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Tony and All,
While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned feedback for this draft process as APNIC?
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal -0 8apr14-en.htm
Hi Masato and thanks for your queries.
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process. (while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are currently asked feedbacks)
Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?
APNIC staff's interpretation follows below.
The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort, and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on the proposal.
I believe that the intention here is for ICANN Board to act as an "umpire" to ensure that the process has been carried out correctly, but not to undertake a vote to actually approve the proposal.
You may ask how the ICANN board, as umpire, would decide that the process had not been followed; and I assume that a vote could be involved. But in that case the vote would be on the process and not the proposal.
The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting process.
I believe that this paragraph is intended to set ICANN on a equal footing with other affected parties. I think that each affected party (including ICANN) is expected to independently submit its endorsement of the proposal, to be communicated to the NTIA. But I agree that the reference to "formal voting" here is unclear and should be clarified.
Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed. (ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in May) We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from AP region without physical meeting.
This mailing list was established to allow exactly this kind of discussion and feedback; I expect that we will use it increasingly from this point onwards, and of course we will need to discuss this process during the September meeting in Brisbane.
Best regards
Paul.
Paul,
While NRO (also IAB and ISOC) support current scope document by ICANN, almost all other comments, in particular from domain operators, are against for that. And, I think this point will be one of major topics in next step.
So, is it possible to clarify NRO's position for this point?
a) actively defend current scope document b) keep neutral position unless proposed changes would be harmful for NRO and RIRs c) support changing current scope document.
IMO, b) is reasonable position as NRO and RIRs, since we propose to split this discussion to 3 areas, which are domain names, IP address and AS numbers, and protocols, and this point is raised mainly by domain communities.
Rgs, Masato
On 14/05/07 18:11, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
Masato and all,
As you may have seen, a final version has now been submitted in the name of the NRO. It is attached here.
For this wishing to join ICANN's mailing list, send a "subscribe" message to
ianatransition-request@icann.org
And the archive is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/date.html
Thanks for your feedback.
Paul.
On 07/05/2014, at 1:28 PM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul,
Thank you for sharing the draft.
I can support it as written.
It is trivial, but I think "Web-based platform" in proposed mechanisms is a little bit odd, since it is too details compared with other proposed mechanisms and also I'm not sure whether it includes e-mail based discussion which we often use. Anyway, I think we don't need to mention it as it is trivial.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/05/05 19:21, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
Masato, here is a draft response which is currently being considered at the moment.
Comments from community members including yourself would be more than welcome, in the short time available.
Paul.
====
DRAFT
We have considered ICANN's Call for Public Input in relation to the transition of IANA stewardship, and the associated scoping document, which are located at:
[i]
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal- 08 apr14-en.htm
[ii] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping- 08apr 14-en.pdf
We have also considered other contributions, in particular that of the IAB, which is located at:
[iii]
http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2014/04/iab-response-to-201404 08 -20140428a.pdf
We offer the following comments in response to these documents:
- We support the proposed scope[ii] of the transition proposal, which
excludes IANA policy development processes, the question of the IANA operator, and any issues which are not within the scope of IANA functions. Such questions remain important and may continue to be discussed elsewhere, and they should remain unaffected by the development of the transition proposal, or by the transition of IANA oversight responsibilities. At the same time, the transition proposal should in no way limit the future solutions or options which are available in any of these areas.
- We support the guiding principles and mechanisms as proposed in [i].
We agree that these are consistent both with established norms for such processes within our communities, and with the large majority of inputs received so far from the ICANN community.
- We agree that the ICANN Board must respect and adopt the outcome of
the entire development process, as reported by the “Steering Group”, without a vote; providing that the process has been conducted in accordance with the scope, principles and mechanisms as proposed.
- Finally, we support the comments from the IAB, and in particular we
agree:
That each of the 3 communities of interest in IANA functionsbe offered the primary responsibility to produce respective transition plans, in accordance both with their own established processes, and with the defined scope, principles and mechanisms. In the case of the IP addressing community, encompassing 5 regional communities, there are well-defined policy development and oversight mechanisms existing at the regional and global levels, which would be applied with complete transparency on this process.
That the “Steering Group” act and be referred to as acoordinating group with the primary role and responsibilities as proposed by the IAB.
That the “Steering Group” operate on the basis of roughconsensus, rather than voting.
We offer this input as a constructive contribution to this process, and we look forward to ICANN’s final proposal for the process of developing the transition proposal. However regardless of that proposal, we will undertake comprehensive consultations within our own communities over the coming year, in an effort to reach broad consensus on stewardship arrangements which will best ensure the future stability, security, transparency and integrity of IANA functions, particularly in relation to IP addressing.
On 06/05/2014, at 9:47 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul and Tony,
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
Do you have any update for the joint response among NRO? The deadline is May 8th midnight in UTC.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/29 22:02, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
On 30/04/2014, at 10:35 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Tony and All,
While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned feedback for this draft process as APNIC?
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-propos al -0 8apr14-en.htm
Hi Masato and thanks for your queries.
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process. (while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are currently asked feedbacks)
Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?
APNIC staff's interpretation follows below.
> The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) > ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined > by > the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this >effort, > and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. > Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote >on > the proposal.
I believe that the intention here is for ICANN Board to act as an "umpire" to ensure that the process has been carried out correctly, but not to undertake a vote to actually approve the proposal.
You may ask how the ICANN board, as umpire, would decide that the process had not been followed; and I assume that a vote could be involved. But in that case the vote would be on the process and not the proposal.
> The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be > reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party >to > provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be > communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal >voting > process.
I believe that this paragraph is intended to set ICANN on a equal footing with other affected parties. I think that each affected party (including ICANN) is expected to independently submit its endorsement of the proposal, to be communicated to the NTIA. But I agree that the reference to "formal voting" here is unclear and should be clarified.
Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed. (ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in May) We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from AP region without physical meeting.
This mailing list was established to allow exactly this kind of discussion and feedback; I expect that we will use it increasingly from this point onwards, and of course we will need to discuss this process during the September meeting in Brisbane.
Best regards
Paul.
Hi Masato,
Personally I agree with you: option b) makes most sense for us.
I think the concern with a wider scope is in 2 respects:
- The timeframe is already a challenge, with enough to do in this period without adding unnecessarily to the scope. And especially when additions are likely to increase the uncertainty about reaching agreement at all within the timeframe, or even within an extended period. If the success of the overall process is threatened then this is a concern to the IP addressing community, of course.
IMHO, it is reasonable that those with expectations of IANA in the future want to be certain that their needs are not ruled out by the transition process (as stated in the NRO comments), however it is not realistic to try to accommodate every possible need and expectation of IANA during the coming 15 months.
The key here is the ICANN accountability process, which needs to ensure future evolution of the ICANN system, and which I agree needs to be satisfactorily reviewed before the transition is finalised. As you may know, ICANN has recently announced a new accountability review, here:
https://new.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-05-07-en
- Secondly, the NTIA announcement itself calls clearly for a very specific plan, related to transition of the role that NTIA plays, and nothing more:
As the first step, NTIA is asking the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS).
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...
It makes sense to respect this scope, particularly in light of the above, and an expansion of scope into unexpected areas may well threaten the acceptability of the plan to the NTIA and others in the USG.
My opinions only.
Paul.
As I said during ICANN 49 in Singapore, I do think the timeframe is achievable
On 09/05/2014, at 8:05 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul,
While NRO (also IAB and ISOC) support current scope document by ICANN, almost all other comments, in particular from domain operators, are against for that. And, I think this point will be one of major topics in next step.
So, is it possible to clarify NRO's position for this point?
a) actively defend current scope document b) keep neutral position unless proposed changes would be harmful for NRO and RIRs c) support changing current scope document.
IMO, b) is reasonable position as NRO and RIRs, since we propose to split this discussion to 3 areas, which are domain names, IP address and AS numbers, and protocols, and this point is raised mainly by domain communities.
Rgs, Masato
On 14/05/07 18:11, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
Masato and all,
As you may have seen, a final version has now been submitted in the name of the NRO. It is attached here.
For this wishing to join ICANN's mailing list, send a "subscribe" message to
ianatransition-request@icann.org
And the archive is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/date.html
Thanks for your feedback.
Paul.
On 07/05/2014, at 1:28 PM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul,
Thank you for sharing the draft.
I can support it as written.
It is trivial, but I think "Web-based platform" in proposed mechanisms is a little bit odd, since it is too details compared with other proposed mechanisms and also I'm not sure whether it includes e-mail based discussion which we often use. Anyway, I think we don't need to mention it as it is trivial.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/05/05 19:21, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
Masato, here is a draft response which is currently being considered at the moment.
Comments from community members including yourself would be more than welcome, in the short time available.
Paul.
====
DRAFT
We have considered ICANN's Call for Public Input in relation to the transition of IANA stewardship, and the associated scoping document, which are located at:
[i]
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal- 08 apr14-en.htm
[ii] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping- 08apr 14-en.pdf
We have also considered other contributions, in particular that of the IAB, which is located at:
[iii]
http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2014/04/iab-response-to-201404 08 -20140428a.pdf
We offer the following comments in response to these documents:
- We support the proposed scope[ii] of the transition proposal, which
excludes IANA policy development processes, the question of the IANA operator, and any issues which are not within the scope of IANA functions. Such questions remain important and may continue to be discussed elsewhere, and they should remain unaffected by the development of the transition proposal, or by the transition of IANA oversight responsibilities. At the same time, the transition proposal should in no way limit the future solutions or options which are available in any of these areas.
- We support the guiding principles and mechanisms as proposed in [i].
We agree that these are consistent both with established norms for such processes within our communities, and with the large majority of inputs received so far from the ICANN community.
- We agree that the ICANN Board must respect and adopt the outcome of
the entire development process, as reported by the “Steering Group”, without a vote; providing that the process has been conducted in accordance with the scope, principles and mechanisms as proposed.
- Finally, we support the comments from the IAB, and in particular we
agree:
That each of the 3 communities of interest in IANA functionsbe offered the primary responsibility to produce respective transition plans, in accordance both with their own established processes, and with the defined scope, principles and mechanisms. In the case of the IP addressing community, encompassing 5 regional communities, there are well-defined policy development and oversight mechanisms existing at the regional and global levels, which would be applied with complete transparency on this process.
That the “Steering Group” act and be referred to as acoordinating group with the primary role and responsibilities as proposed by the IAB.
That the “Steering Group” operate on the basis of roughconsensus, rather than voting.
We offer this input as a constructive contribution to this process, and we look forward to ICANN’s final proposal for the process of developing the transition proposal. However regardless of that proposal, we will undertake comprehensive consultations within our own communities over the coming year, in an effort to reach broad consensus on stewardship arrangements which will best ensure the future stability, security, transparency and integrity of IANA functions, particularly in relation to IP addressing.
On 06/05/2014, at 9:47 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul and Tony,
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
Do you have any update for the joint response among NRO? The deadline is May 8th midnight in UTC.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/29 22:02, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
On 30/04/2014, at 10:35 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
> Tony and All, > > While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned > feedback for this draft process as APNIC? > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-propos > al > -0 > 8apr14-en.htm
Hi Masato and thanks for your queries.
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed approach.
> > > IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process. > (while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are > currently asked feedbacks) > > > Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next > two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?
APNIC staff's interpretation follows below.
> >> The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) >> ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined >> by >> the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this >> effort, >> and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld. >> Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote >> on >> the proposal.
I believe that the intention here is for ICANN Board to act as an "umpire" to ensure that the process has been carried out correctly, but not to undertake a vote to actually approve the proposal.
You may ask how the ICANN board, as umpire, would decide that the process had not been followed; and I assume that a vote could be involved. But in that case the vote would be on the process and not the proposal.
>> The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be >> reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party >> to >> provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be >> communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal >> voting >> process.
I believe that this paragraph is intended to set ICANN on a equal footing with other affected parties. I think that each affected party (including ICANN) is expected to independently submit its endorsement of the proposal, to be communicated to the NTIA. But I agree that the reference to "formal voting" here is unclear and should be clarified.
> > Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting > before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be > formed. > (ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it > in > May) > We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback > from > AP region without physical meeting.
This mailing list was established to allow exactly this kind of discussion and feedback; I expect that we will use it increasingly from this point onwards, and of course we will need to discuss this process during the September meeting in Brisbane.
Best regards
Paul.
Paul,
IMO, APNIC has two different but highly related positions which are RIR and technical community in AP region.
From RIR perspective, your concern for the wider scope is understandable.
However, from technical community perspective, we also need to consider that some active members in this community, including APTLD, InternetNZ, and JPRS, are claiming that wider scope. That is why I suggested keeping neutral position as RIR, otherwise it may interfere with our active members' interests.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/05/08 17:26, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Masato,
Personally I agree with you: option b) makes most sense for us.
I think the concern with a wider scope is in 2 respects:
- The timeframe is already a challenge, with enough to do in this period
without adding unnecessarily to the scope. And especially when additions are likely to increase the uncertainty about reaching agreement at all within the timeframe, or even within an extended period. If the success of the overall process is threatened then this is a concern to the IP addressing community, of course.
IMHO, it is reasonable that those with expectations of IANA in the future want to be certain that their needs are not ruled out by the transition process (as stated in the NRO comments), however it is not realistic to try to accommodate every possible need and expectation of IANA during the coming 15 months.
The key here is the ICANN accountability process, which needs to ensure future evolution of the ICANN system, and which I agree needs to be satisfactorily reviewed before the transition is finalised. As you may know, ICANN has recently announced a new accountability review, here:
https://new.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-05-07-en
- Secondly, the NTIA announcement itself calls clearly for a very
specific plan, related to transition of the role that NTIA plays, and nothing more:
As the first step, NTIA is asking the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS).
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transitio n-key-internet-domain-name-functions
It makes sense to respect this scope, particularly in light of the above, and an expansion of scope into unexpected areas may well threaten the acceptability of the plan to the NTIA and others in the USG.
My opinions only.
Paul.
As I said during ICANN 49 in Singapore, I do think the timeframe is achievable
On 09/05/2014, at 8:05 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul,
While NRO (also IAB and ISOC) support current scope document by ICANN, almost all other comments, in particular from domain operators, are against for that. And, I think this point will be one of major topics in next step.
So, is it possible to clarify NRO's position for this point?
a) actively defend current scope document b) keep neutral position unless proposed changes would be harmful for NRO and RIRs c) support changing current scope document.
IMO, b) is reasonable position as NRO and RIRs, since we propose to split this discussion to 3 areas, which are domain names, IP address and AS numbers, and protocols, and this point is raised mainly by domain communities.
Rgs, Masato
On 14/05/07 18:11, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
Masato and all,
As you may have seen, a final version has now been submitted in the name of the NRO. It is attached here.
For this wishing to join ICANN's mailing list, send a "subscribe" message to
ianatransition-request@icann.org
And the archive is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/date.html
Thanks for your feedback.
Paul.
On 07/05/2014, at 1:28 PM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul,
Thank you for sharing the draft.
I can support it as written.
It is trivial, but I think "Web-based platform" in proposed mechanisms is a little bit odd, since it is too details compared with other proposed mechanisms and also I'm not sure whether it includes e-mail based discussion which we often use. Anyway, I think we don't need to mention it as it is trivial.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/05/05 19:21, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
Masato, here is a draft response which is currently being considered at the moment.
Comments from community members including yourself would be more than welcome, in the short time available.
Paul.
====
DRAFT
We have considered ICANN's Call for Public Input in relation to the transition of IANA stewardship, and the associated scoping document, which are located at:
[i]
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposa l- 08 apr14-en.htm
[ii]
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping- 08apr 14-en.pdf
We have also considered other contributions, in particular that of the IAB, which is located at:
[iii]
http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2014/04/iab-response-to-2014 04 08 -20140428a.pdf
We offer the following comments in response to these documents:
- We support the proposed scope[ii] of the transition proposal,
which excludes IANA policy development processes, the question of the IANA operator, and any issues which are not within the scope of IANA functions. Such questions remain important and may continue to be discussed elsewhere, and they should remain unaffected by the development of the transition proposal, or by the transition of IANA oversight responsibilities. At the same time, the transition proposal should in no way limit the future solutions or options which are available in any of these areas.
- We support the guiding principles and mechanisms as proposed in
[i]. We agree that these are consistent both with established norms for such processes within our communities, and with the large majority of inputs received so far from the ICANN community.
- We agree that the ICANN Board must respect and adopt the outcome
of the entire development process, as reported by the “Steering Group”, without a vote; providing that the process has been conducted in accordance with the scope, principles and mechanisms as proposed.
- Finally, we support the comments from the IAB, and in particular
we agree:
That each of the 3 communities of interest in IANA functionsbe offered the primary responsibility to produce respective transition plans, in accordance both with their own established processes, and with the defined scope, principles and mechanisms. In the case of the IP addressing community, encompassing 5 regional communities, there are well-defined policy development and oversight mechanisms existing at the regional and global levels, which would be applied with complete transparency on this process.
That the “Steering Group” act and be referred to as acoordinating group with the primary role and responsibilities as proposed by the IAB.
That the “Steering Group” operate on the basis of roughconsensus, rather than voting.
We offer this input as a constructive contribution to this process, and we look forward to ICANN’s final proposal for the process of developing the transition proposal. However regardless of that proposal, we will undertake comprehensive consultations within our own communities over the coming year, in an effort to reach broad consensus on stewardship arrangements which will best ensure the future stability, security, transparency and integrity of IANA functions, particularly in relation to IP addressing.
On 06/05/2014, at 9:47 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul and Tony,
> Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and > this > is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed > approach.
Do you have any update for the joint response among NRO? The deadline is May 8th midnight in UTC.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/29 22:02, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
> > On 30/04/2014, at 10:35 AM, Masato Yamanishi > myamanis@japan-telecom.com > wrote: > >> Tony and All, >> >> While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any >>planned >> feedback for this draft process as APNIC? >> >> >> >> >>http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-prop >>os >> al >> -0 >> 8apr14-en.htm > > Hi Masato and thanks for your queries. > > Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and > this > is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed > approach. > >> >> >> IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed >>process. >> (while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which >>are >> currently asked feedbacks) >> >> >> Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in >>next >> two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting? > > APNIC staff's interpretation follows below. > >> >>> The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1) >>> ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles >>>outlined >>> by >>> the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this >>> effort, >>> and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are >>>upheld. >>> Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a >>>vote >>> on >>> the proposal. > > I believe that the intention here is for ICANN Board to act as an > "umpire" to ensure that the process has been carried out correctly, > but > not to undertake a vote to actually approve the proposal. > > You may ask how the ICANN board, as umpire, would decide that the > process > had not been followed; and I assume that a vote could be involved. > But > in that case the vote would be on the process and not the proposal. > >>> The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will >>>be >>> reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each >>>party >>> to >>> provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will >>>be >>> communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal >>> voting >>> process. > > I believe that this paragraph is intended to set ICANN on a equal > footing > with other affected parties. I think that each affected party > (including > ICANN) is expected to independently submit its endorsement of the > proposal, to be communicated to the NTIA. But I agree that the > reference > to "formal voting" here is unclear and should be clarified. > >> >> Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical >>meeting >> before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be >> formed. >> (ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it >> in >> May) >> We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback >> from >> AP region without physical meeting. > > This mailing list was established to allow exactly this kind of > discussion and feedback; I expect that we will use it increasingly > from > this point onwards, and of course we will need to discuss this > process > during the September meeting in Brisbane. > > Best regards > > Paul. >
Activity Summary
- 3493 days inactive
- 3493 days old
- ianaxfer@apnic.net
- 2 participants
- 10 comments