[IOTF] Agenda for IOTF Call #2 (Friday 25 March 14:00 UTC/07:00 PDT/10:00 EDT/Saturday 26 March 01:00 AEDT)
james at cyberinvasion.net
Thu Mar 24 22:07:25 UTC 2016
Thanks for this Alissa, and I think that this reflects what myself and some others noted on the call earlier this week, that the names only PTI is not the expectation of the community as outlined in the various proposal.
I really think that the implementation staff need to take this on board as from my perspective if that is made an issue of I think that we will need to go back to the ICG and consider this an incompatible implementation of the communities proposal.
From: <iotf-bounces at icann.org<mailto:iotf-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Alissa Cooper via IOTF <iotf at icann.org<mailto:iotf at icann.org>>
Reply-To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
Date: Thursday 24 March 2016 at 10:02 p.m.
To: Yuko Green <yuko.green at icann.org<mailto:yuko.green at icann.org>>
Cc: "iotf at icann.org<mailto:iotf at icann.org>" <iotf at icann.org<mailto:iotf at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [IOTF] Agenda for IOTF Call #2 (Friday 25 March 14:00 UTC/07:00 PDT/10:00 EDT/Saturday 26 March 01:00 AEDT)
Thanks for sharing the materials before the call, and my apologies for missing the most recent call.
The IANA transition proposal states that PTI will perform all of the functions currently covered by the NTIA contract (para 21, 23). There is no ambiguity about this. The communities had lengthy discussions about whether all of the functions would move to the PTI, and paras 21 and 23 reflect the community consensus. It is not worth considering or discussing a names-only PTI or any other option, as the substance of the proposal is not up for debate, re-opening, or re-interpretation in cases like this one where it is already unambiguous.
On slide 7, in the “PTI - All 3 IANA functions” table, I do not know why ICANN is listed as an oversight body for numbers and protocol parameters. It is not an oversight body under the proposal. Also, in the case of protocol parameters, oversight is conducted jointly by the IAOC and the IAB. Finally, I wonder what “policy implementation” means and how it is different from “performance of IANA functions.” For protocol parameters at least they are exactly the same thing — carrying out the functions means implementing the policies set by the IETF and others.
On Mar 24, 2016, at 2:40 PM, Yuko Green via IOTF <iotf at icann.org<mailto:iotf at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear members of the IOTF,
Below, please review the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s IOTF call #2 (Friday 25 March 14:00 UTC).
• Opening Remarks (Lise)
• Implementation Items (Trang)
• PTI Structure
• CSC Charter
• Closing Remarks (Lise)
I have also attached the presentation material for your review.
Strategic Programs Manager
Global Domains Division
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693
Mobile: +1 310 745 1517
E-mail: yuko.green at icann.org<mailto:yuko.green at icann.org>
<ITOF Call #2_25MAR16.pdf>_______________________________________________
IOTF mailing list
IOTF at icann.org<mailto:IOTF at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IOTF