[IOTF] Agenda for IOTF Call #2 (Friday 25 March 14:00 UTC/07:00 PDT/10:00 EDT/Saturday 26 March 01:00 AEDT)

[Paul M Kane - CWG]

I am uncomfortable with slide 7 (seems a power grab :-( ) and suggest the
attached slide 7 image may clarify what was envisaged.

Speak later.

Best

Paul



Quoting James Gannon via IOTF <iotf at icann.org>:

> 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.
> 
> -James
> 
> 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)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> 
> 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
> •  AOB
> •  Closing Remarks (Lise)
> 
> I have also attached the presentation material for your review.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Yuko Green
> 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>
> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>
> 
> <ITOF Call #2_25MAR16.pdf>_______________________________________________
> IOTF mailing list
> IOTF at icann.org<mailto:IOTF at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iotf
> 
> 




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Responsibilities.png
Type: image/png
Size: 200711 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/attachments/20160325/d5bccea8/Responsibilities-0001.png>