[Internal-cg] FAQ update ..

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Thu Dec 4 11:32:59 UTC 2014


Many thanks Elise and Adiel .. 

Apologies if you have received my email as it reads below, i.e. without
the suggested strike through(s) ...

We'll then proceed with the first proposal, which in its final view
reads:

Can I submit my own proposal? 

You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing
proposals.  That would centralize the authority in the ICG's hands,
while 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.

Thanks again for your cooperation and flexibility .. 

 

Kind Regards

--Manal

  

From: Adiel Akplogan [mailto:adiel at afrinic.net] 
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:12 AM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Elise Gerich; internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..

 

Hello Manal, my preference is the first proposal. I will be ok with the
second option if the sentence is changed to read:

 

"... . That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition
proposal in the ICG's hands, while its preference is for a bottom up,
consensual process."

 

Thanks.

 

- a.

 
On Dec 4, 2014, at 03:10 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:




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 ICG's 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 'IANA', 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 ICG's 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
'IANA' instances replaced by 'IANA functions' ..
 
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 Elise's proposed change in question 9.
However, I do not agree that we cannot refer to an "IANA transition"
without also using the word "stewardship." This seems picky and
arbitrary to me. For example, the IETF working group is named
"IANAPlan," 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 "functions operator" or
"stewardship" or "functions", 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 "IANA".
The text that is deleted is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru
it.
 
The 'Operational Communities' 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, isn't it more correct to say:  "Can I submit my own
proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?"
Added the word "stewardship" which is highlighted in yellow.  The
committee's charter is to come up with an IANA stewardship transition
which is more specific than the general statement of IANA transition.
The phrase "IANA transition" 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 ICG..."
Please modify IANA with "functions" or "stewardship" or "operator".
There is no entity called "IANA".
 
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.
 
I'm ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board's role)
inserted.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 
From:Manal Ismail
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
<ICG-FAQ-04Dec14 without 12
15.docx>_______________________________________________
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/20141204/97fda93f/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list