[Internal-cg] FAQ update ..

Wed Dec 3 23:33:13 UTC 2014

Thanks Milton for your quick response and appreciated flexibility ..

Kind Regards

--Manal 

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 1:26 AM
To: Manal Ismail; 'Elise Gerich'; 'internal-cg at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..

Either way is fine with me

From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 6:10 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; Elise Gerich; internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..

Apologies for my delayed reply ..

I fully agree that time is of essence and believe that this point is
tackled within communities working on the transition proposals ..

So to allow for other substantial discussions, I hope we can agree on
one of the below suggested deletions, as a way forward:

Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take
place? 

You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing
proposals.  That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition
in the ICG's hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual
process.  If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without
participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward
that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for
consideration.

Another alternative can be, just to delete 'IANA', to read as follows:

Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take
place? 

You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing
proposals.  That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition
in the ICG's hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual
process.  If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without
participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward
that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for
consideration.

The first suggestion along with other non-controversial edits are
attached (and uploaded on Dropbox) in a clean version, only highlighting
'IANA' instances replaced by 'IANA functions' ..

Milton, Elise, please confirm an alternative to proceed with ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:10 PM
To: 'Elise Gerich'; Manal Ismail; 'internal-cg at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..

I agree with Elise's proposed change in question 9. 

However, I do not agree that we cannot refer to an "IANA transition"
without also using the word "stewardship." This seems picky and
arbitrary to me. For example, the IETF working group is named
"IANAPlan," many others refer to it as the IANA oversight transition or
the IANA transition. (See this page from APNIC
http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf 

I think time is of the essence here we have a lot more important things
to worry about. 

From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:21 AM
To: Manal Ismail; WUKnoben; internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..

Dear Manal,

You will see a trend in my request to please revise any stand alone
references to IANA.  There is no independent entity called IANA.  It is
more correct to use the word IANA with "functions operator" or
"stewardship" or "functions", and those revisions will be consistent
with the rest of the document.  The examples to be revised are noted
below.

1) For question 9, is it possible to remove the stand-alone IANA since
it is not qualified as the IANA functions nor as the IANA functions
operator?  Below is the proposed text without the superfluous "IANA".
The text that is deleted is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru
it.

The 'Operational Communities' of IANA are communities with direct
operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator,
in connection with internet names, numbers, or protocol parameters,
namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Country
Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), the Regional Internet
Registries (RIRs), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

2) For question 13, isn't it more correct to say:  "Can I submit my own
proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?"
Added the word "stewardship" which is highlighted in yellow.  The
committee's charter is to come up with an IANA stewardship transition
which is more specific than the general statement of IANA transition.
The phrase "IANA transition" is repeated in the response to question 13,
and should be revised to include the work stewardship also.

3) In response to question 22, it says: ".  After receiving consensus
proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG..."
Please modify IANA with "functions" or "stewardship" or "operator".
There is no entity called "IANA".

Thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of the committee to
maintain and update the FAQ.

Best regards,

-- Elise 

From: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 5:01 AM
To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "internal-cg at icann.org"
<internal-cg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..

	Dear All ..

	Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on
Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below
suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions
..

	I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as
possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so
far as well as by Alissa on our last call ..

	I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The
only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some
colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest
that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now ..

	Awaiting your feedback ..

	Kind Regards

	--Manal  

	From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
	Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM
	To: WUKnoben; internal-cg at icann.org
	Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..

	Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. 

	I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the
focus of Q#16 ..

	Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too?

	Kind Regards

	--Manal

	From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] 
	Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM
	To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at icann.org
	Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..

	Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the
already published FAG accordingly asap.

	I'm ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board's role)
inserted.

	Best regards

	Wolf-Ulrich

	From:Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>  

	Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM

	To:internal-cg at icann.org

	Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..

	Dear All ..

	I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa
suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: 

	"I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new
text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG
is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are
vis a vis the proposal submission process." 

	Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a
version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous
discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going
to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending
finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document,
it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time ..
Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some
questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we
continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still
unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19
on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the
relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process
..

	If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim
through the track changes and identify any questions were there are
still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates
concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. 

	I think we should also have some way to highlight new or
modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online
version ..

	How does this sound?

	Looking forward to receiving your views and any other
suggestions for better ways forward ..

	Kind Regards

	--Manal 

________________________________

	_______________________________________________
	Internal-cg mailing list
	Internal-cg at icann.org
	https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141204/21fdb8f2/attachment-0001.html>