[Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Manal,
May you kindly provide me with the draft that is expected to be finalized
by us.
I did give you my comments before
Kavouss

2015-02-08 18:24 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:

> Maybe .. What if an agreement was not reached?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> --Manal
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *joseph alhadeff
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2015 4:08 AM
> *To:* internal-cg at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting
> #4, 6-7 February 2015
>
>
>
> Does waiting for the reply, impact the timing of any of the further review
> obligations we have?
>
> On 2/7/2015 8:58 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Alissa is awaiting suggestions for a date for a response to this question.
>
> My suggestion is that we request that they tell us within 30 days _*how*_
> they plan to go about resolving this issue (e.g., meetings, etc.) and once
> they respond in that way we ask them to suggest a timeline for how quickly
> they think they can resolve it.
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org <internal-cg-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 7, 2015 8:50 PM
> *To:* Jennifer Chung; 'ICG'
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting
> #4, 6-7 February 2015
>
>
>
> Jennifer,
>
> You forgot the question we agreed to send jointly to the numbers and
> protocol parameters group.
>
> I was responsible for this, but yesterday when I said it was “done” I
> meant that the question had been approved by the group. I do not think it
> was “finished” in the sense that we have formally transmitted it to the two
> OCs. I would like to know how that will be done, and when.
>
>
>
> For everyone’s reference, here is the agreed question:
>
>
>
> The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did
> not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA
> trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement of its transition
> proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says:
>
>
>
> "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the
> expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with
> the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering
> Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA
> Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets
> will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators)
> be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number
> Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be
> transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services
> Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a
> non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the
> Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an
> acceptable candidate for this role.”
>
>
>
> The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition
> and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the
> proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol
> parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile
> them?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org <internal-cg-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Jennifer Chung
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 7, 2015 6:40 PM
> *To:* 'ICG'
> *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4,
> 6-7 February 2015
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> As reviewed by the ICG chairs, please find the list of action items from
> the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4 below:
>
>
>
> 1. Secretariat to summarize questions/answers resolved internally about
> the protocol parameters proposal and numbers proposal discussed.
>
> 2. Arkko to compile a list of for a request for information from the
> protocol parameters community re jurisdiction, NTIA oversight and send it
> to internal-cg list.
>
> 3. Wilson to request clarification from CRISP team, questions put forth by
> Arasteh (regarding Section II.B.2 and III.A of the numbers proposal).
>
> 4. ICG chairs to review details of the proposal finalization process and
> refine ICG timeline with assistance from Secretariat.
>
> 5. Ismail, Arasteh, St. Amour, Alhadeff, Subrenat to continue working on
> community comments handling document with suggestions put forward by other
> ICG members.
>
> 6. ICG to continue to discuss and agree on talking points and ICG chairs
> to send bullet points for Monday session on the internal-cg list.
>
> 7. Fältström to communicate with CWG-IANA and CCWG-Accountability before
> coordinating ICG teleconference schedule.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Internal-cg mailing list
>
> Internal-cg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150208/cc29e8d6/attachment-0001.html>