[IOTF] Agenda for IOTF Call #2 (Friday 25 March 14:00 UTC/07:00 PDT/10:00 EDT/Saturday 26 March 01:00 AEDT)
mshears at cdt.org
Fri Mar 25 10:23:54 UTC 2016
Completely agree James.
On 3/24/2016 10:07 PM, James Gannon via IOTF wrote:
> 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
> 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.
>> *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>
> IOTF mailing list
> IOTF at icann.org
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IOTF