[Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Elise Gerich
elise.gerich at icann.org
Thu Dec 4 00:13:15 UTC 2014
Manal,
Thanks for your suggestions. My preference is for #1, though both are
acceptable.
Thank you,
-- Elise
From: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 at 3:10 PM
To: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, Elise Gerich
<elise.gerich at icann.org>, "internal-cg at icann.org" <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 ICG¹s 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 IANA¹, 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 ICG¹s 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 IANA¹
> instances replaced by IANA functions¹ ..
>
> 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 Elise¹s proposed change in question 9.
> However, I do not agree that we cannot refer to an ³IANA transition² without
> also using the word ³stewardship.² This seems picky and arbitrary to me. For
> example, the IETF working group is named ³IANAPlan,² 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 ³functions operator² or ³stewardship² or ³functions²,
> 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 ³IANA². The text that is deleted
> is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru it.
>
>
>
> The Operational Communities¹ 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, isn¹t it more correct to say: ³Can I submit my own
> proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?² Added the
> word ³stewardship² which is highlighted in yellow. The committee¹s charter is
> to come up with an IANA stewardship transition which is more specific than the
> general statement of IANA transition. The phrase ³IANA transition² 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 ICG² Please
> modify IANA with ³functions² or ³stewardship² or ³operator². There is no
> entity called ³IANA².
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> I¹m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board¹s 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/a0238e95/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141204/a0238e95/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list