- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] NRO Statement on IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability
by Nick Hilliard 14 Oct '15

14 Oct '15

FYI. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] NRO Statement on IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:28:04 +0000 From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> https://www.nro.net/news/nro-statement-on-iana-stewardship-transition-and-i… FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team Call Agenda e: [NRO-IANAXFER] Reminder CRISP Team Call today October 8th 2015 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 08 Oct '15

08 Oct '15

Apologies for the late sharing of this. Nurani on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team Call Agenda e: [NRO-IANAXFER] Reminder CRISP Team Call today October 8th 2015 13:00 UTC > Date: 8 oktober 2015 11:36:59 CEST > To: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net>, ianaxfer(a)nro.net, crisp(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > Please see below the agenda for the meeting today. > > You can find the Webex details from German's mail and anyone is welcome to join as an observer as usual. > > --- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Action Items > a. Minutes from the last call > > 3. The questions from the ICG > > 4. IPR > a. Principles > b. IANAPLAN approach > c. Implementation time > > 5. General implementation plan > > 6. ICANN54 > > 7. Next Meetings > > 8. AOB > --- > > Izumi & Nurani > > On 2015/10/08 10:34, German Valdez wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> This is reminder of the scheduled CRISP Team call to be hold later today. >> >> Observers are welcome to join >> >> Below is webex details. >> >> Regards >> >> German Valdez >> NRO Secretariat >> >> >> >> JOIN WEBEX MEETING >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m31c9ec30fcbe5ab39d62d984dfbf2… >> Meeting number: 709 316 083 >> Meeting password: crisp >> >> >> JOIN BY PHONE >> 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) >> +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) >> Access code: 709 316 083 >> >> Global call-in numbers: >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389533… >> >> Toll-free dialing restrictions: >> http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> > > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

IANA Review Committee Selection Process - RIPE Community Support
by Hans Petter Holen 24 Sep '15

24 Sep '15

Dear RIPE community, As you may be aware, the proposal for IANA stewardship developed by the CRISP Team (and now incorporated into the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group’s proposal) proposes establishing a community-based Review Committee to assist the RIRs in their periodic review of the IANA numbering services Service Level Agreement. In recent months, the NRO Executive Council circulated a draft charter for this Review Committee, noting that the Review Committee “will comprise 15 members, constituted by: (a) two community appointees from each RIR region (who must not be RIR staff); and (b) one RIR staff from the region (who will be a non-voting member).” The charter also notes that “Each RIR shall appoint their Review committee members by a method of its own choosing.” https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter-draft-Publi… The RIR Executive Council have indicated that they would like to establish this Review Committee in the coming months (ahead of the IANA stewardship transition), so it is important that the RIPE community come to consensus on how we will select our Review Committee members, and who those members will be. I would like to suggest a solution for your consideration and discussion: we currently have three community representatives on the NRO Number Council, two of which are elected by the community (the third is appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board). Acknowledging that the work of the Review Committee will likely be quite limited, I suggest that we appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council representatives as our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, non-voting member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff member, would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that would avoid an extra election process. It is based on our long-standing NRO Number Council process and employing the knowledge and talents of individuals who clearly have the trust of the RIPE community. It is important, however, that the community agree on a method for selecting Review Committee members, so if you support this method I would appreciate that you do so on the RIPE list (ripe-list(a)ripe.net) by Monday, 28 September. If this proposal is not acceptable we will conduct a separate IANA Review Committee selection process that would need to be planned prior to the RIPE 71 in November. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind Regards, -- Hans Petter Holen, RIPE Chair email: hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

7 8

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Meeting on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 22 Sep '15

22 Sep '15

FYI. Nurani Nimpuno > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Meeting on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > Date: 22 september 2015 13:17:59 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Please find below webex invitation for CRISP Team call on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > > > JOIN WEBEX MEETING > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d… > Meeting number: 707 107 621 > Meeting password: crisp > > > JOIN BY PHONE > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 707 107 621 > > Global call-in numbers: > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532… > > Toll-free dialing restrictions: > http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO Secretariat > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Away from the distrubutionslist
by Maud.Karlberg＠vll.se 22 Sep '15

22 Sep '15

Hello! Can you remove me from this distrubitionslist? Vänliga hälsningar Maud Karlberg Informatikenheten By 5A, 2 tr Västerbottens läns landsting 901 85 Umeå 090-7854101 www.vll.se/informatik

1 0

Fwd: IANA Review Committee Selection Process - RIPE Community Support
by Sergey V. Gushkov 21 Sep '15

21 Sep '15

+1 I completely agree! 2015-09-21 16:21 GMT+03:00 Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com>: > > On 15 Sep 2015, at 18:26, Hans Petter Holen <hph(a)oslo.net> wrote: > > > I suggest that we appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council > representatives as our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, > non-voting member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff > member, would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. > > > > I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that > would avoid an extra election process. > > +1 > > Just do it! >

1 0

CCWG Second Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 09 Sep '15

09 Sep '15

Dear colleagues, I would like to remind you that the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published CCWG-Accountability second Draft Report that can be found here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460 Comments can be sent through this webpage: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en The comment period closes on 12 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the Number Community to review and give feedback on any specific points in the second Draft Report. At the same time we would like to provide you with a follow-up on the numbering-related matters highlighted in our analysis of the first Draft Report (see communication from 15 May 2015 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/2015-May/000753.html and ASO representatives submission to the CCWG on 12 June 2015 http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-June/0033…) We would also like to highlight the principle amendment introduced in the second Draft Report (section 7 below). 1. Revised Mission The CCWG suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission (more details in section 3.2 of the second Draft Report). With regards to the coordination of policy development for Internet number resources, the description reads as follows: “In this role, with respect to IP addresses and AS numbers, ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs” (p 29, para 181). The description was provided by the ASO representatives during the drafting process for the first Draft Report and the ASO representatives requested that the Number Community confirm its accuracy during the previous public consultation. Support was expressed for this definition. 2. Revised Commitments and Core Values The CCWG proposes an amendment to one of the core values of the Bylaws. In the first Draft Report (p 25, para 89) the proposed amendment read as follows: “Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, [private sector led multistakeholder] policy development processes that (i) seeks input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well- informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;” After the public consultation period ASO representative’s communicated to the CCWG the following comment: “With regards to ICANN’s core values in the Bylaws and in particular page 25, paragraph 89, the RIR community notes that the term "private sector led multistakeholder" (and similar terms) have been used by the NTIA in describing ICANN, but the RIRs describe their policy development processes using terms such as "inclusive, open, transparent and bottom-up". These different descriptions are compatible, provided it is understood that "private sector led" does not exclude government participation.“ In the second Draft Report the proposed amendment has been altered and now reads as follows (p.31 para 205): “Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes, led by the private sector, including business stakeholders, civil society, the technical community, and academia that (i) seek input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;” Do you have any comments with regards to this amended description? 3. U.S. Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws As in the first Draft Report, the CCWG proposes in the second Draft Report the incorporation of some ICANN accountability-related provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws (in particular regarding ICANN’s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in section 4 (pp 34-37) of the second Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) with voting rights could block the proposed change (by a 66% vote). On the other hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs with voting rights (75% vote). One of these provisions requires that ICANN “remains headquartered in the United States of America”. The CCWG noted that this provision exists already in current ICANN Bylaws, at Article XVIII Section 1: “OFFICES. The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish.” In the first Draft Report the CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw, since it has been suggested that the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions be incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws. After the public consultation period, the ASO representatives communicated to the CCWG the following comment: “There is general support the introduction of Fundamental Bylaws. Regarding, the list of Bylaws that should become Fundamental Bylaws, most of them indeed contain fundamental principles. However, the RIR community does not believe that the requirement for ICANN to remain in the United States of America is fundamental, but rather is an administrative issue.” The second Draft Report does not propose that Article XVIII be designated as Fundamental Bylaw, and provides the following justification: “Three considerations suggest that CCWG not propose Article XVIII be designated as a Fundamental Bylaw: First, public comment on the first draft was evenly split on the question of whether to designate Article XVIII a Fundamental Bylaw. Supporting this designation were several commenters from the Commercial Stakeholders Group of GNSO. Governments were among those expressing strong opposition. Second, the Community Mechanism as Sole Member must approve with 2/3 vote any change to ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which now state that ICANN is a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation. Third, the Community Mechanism as Sole Member could block any proposed change to ICANN Bylaws Article XVIII, which states ‘The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.’ “ Do you have any comments in relation to this? 4. Appealing Mechanisms The CCWG has proposed enhancements to the two appealing mechanisms described in ICANN Bylaws, i.e. the Independent Review Panel and the Reconsideration process. After the public consultation period ASO representatives communicated the following to the CCWG: “…the RIR community stresses that there are separate, well-established appeal mechanisms for disputes relating to Internet number resources. In particular there is: 1. An arbitration process described in the ASO MoU for disputes relevant to the global policy development process 2. An arbitration process described in the draft Service Level Agreement between the five RIRs and IANA Numbering Services Operator for disputes relevant to the IANA numbering services. 3. A bottom-up process for any concerns that a third party may have relating to Internet number resources issues. Imposing different appeal procedures than the ones agreed upon and used by the numbers community would be contradictory to the bottom-up principle. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that disputes relating to Internet number resources be excluded from the scope of the proposed appeal mechanisms. Additionally the ASO representatives noted that it was requested by the CWG that decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other parties. Considering the above, the ASO representatives would propose that any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover disputes relating to Internet number resources.” Accordingly, in the second Draft Report there is a clear exclusion of the disputes related to Internet number resources with regards to the Independent Review Process (IRP) (p. 40 para 9): “Exclusions; Numbering Resources: The Address Supporting Organization has likewise indicated that disputes related to Internet number resources should be out of scope for the IRP. As requested by the ASO, decisions regarding numbering resources would be excluded from standing.” However in the section describing the amendments with regards to the Reconsideration Process the relevant paragraph reads as follows (p. 44 para 275): “Disputes related to Internet number resources are out of scope of the IRP.” It is our understanding that the intention is to exclude disputes related to Internet number resources from the scope of the Reconsideration Process, as this section is about the Reconsideration Process and not about the IRP. A correction to clarify this would be appropriate. The ASO representatives will comment appropriately to the CCWG. 5. Powers In the second Draft Report there are no changes in the community powers suggested by the CCWG. The powers are as follows: - Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans (section 7.1 of the second Draft Report, pp 55-57) [We would like to note that this power was listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG-Stewardship] - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Standard Bylaws (section 7.2 of the Second Draft Report pp 57-58) - Approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws (section 4.5 of the second Draft Report p 37) - Remove individual ICANN Directors (section 7.3 of the second Draft Report pp 58-60) - Recall the entire ICANN Board (section 7.4 of the second Draft Report pp 60- 63) 6. Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model The first Draft Report suggested that these powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure into a membership-based organisation, with the SO/ACs as the members (Membership Model). An alternative model was also investigated, whereby the SO/ACs would become designators (Designator Model). During the public consultation and thereafter, objections were expressed to both of these models. As a result of further discussions and consultations, the second Draft Report introduces a new structure called the Sole Membership Model. This new model is understood to have the following benefits: - It provides the required legal enforceability that the Designator Model and Membership Model could not. - It removes the problematic requirement for some SOs and ACs that they become legal persons, whether to participate as a member in the Membership Model or to enforce rights in both the Membership Model and Designator Model. - It avoids the problem of different statutory rights between SOs and ACs that become members and SOs and ACs that were not members, associated with the Membership Model. - By allowing action only upon support of the community through the Community Mechanism, it limits the issues related to the statutory rights of members associated with the Membership Model, which would allow members to dissolve ICANN and bring derivative suits. The details of the Sole Membership Model can be found in section 6 (pp 47-53). The following aspects of the model are worthy to be highlighted: - SO/ACs are not required to have a legal personhood. - SO/ACs would participate directly in the Sole Member by providing instructions to the Sole Member to exercise the community powers. - In order to instruct the Sole Member, SO/ACs may choose to have voting rights. Voting rights will be allocated votes in the following way: o ASO, GNSO and ccNSO, 5 votes each o GAC and At-Large, 5 votes each o SSAC and RSSAC, 2 votes each Early indications are that the ASO, ccNSO, GNSO and ALAC would be the initial set of voting participants in the Sole Member (with remaining and future SOs and ACs able to opt-in to voting participation). There is no requirement or expectation that a participating SO or AC cast all its votes identically for a given issue (meaning all 5 in support or all 5 against). - For Director removal, Directors appointed by an SO could only be removed by that specific SO or community. The Sole Member would merely implement their decisions. Do you have any comments with regard to this model? Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

2 1

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Call for Public Comment on IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
by Serge Radovcic 31 Aug '15

31 Aug '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION COORDINATION GROUP (ICG) CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION PROPOSAL For the past 12 months, many in the Internet community have worked hard to formulate a plan for the transition of stewardship of the IANA functions away from the U.S. Government and into the hands of the broader Internet community. Working with and on behalf of the Internet Number Community, the CRISP Team built a plan for the IANA numbering functions, and this now forms part of the transition plan developed by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group for all of the IANA functions. We are now very close to the end of this long and complex process, and the Number Community has devoted many hours to meetings and discussions around the plan. At this stage of the process, to ensure the success of the transition, it is vital that the global Internet community expresses its support for the ICG proposal. Therefore, we encourage members of the RIR communities to review the ICG’s draft IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and register their support or any concerns they may have: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop… Comments can be submitted via an online form or by emailing <public-comments(a)ianacg.org> until 8 September 2015 at 23:59 (UTC). Please note that all questions on the online form about the proposal are optional. The form can be accessed at: https://comments.ianacg.org/form If you agree with the key priorities in the Number Community’s contribution to the proposal – which are focused on ensuring stability, security, reliability, quality of service and community empowerment – please submit your statement of support today! Your comment could be as simple as this: I, as a member of the Number Community, am in favour of the ICG proposal on the IANA stewardship transition. If for any reason you do not agree with the draft proposal, it is essential that you take the time to comment and describe your viewpoint and underlying reasoning. For more information, please review the CRISP Team’s own analysis, which shows how the ICG proposal reflects and supports the CRISP proposal, and the wishes of the global Number Community. It is available here: https://www.nro.net/crisp-response-icg-proposal

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for submission of comment to the combined ICG proposal and the CRISP Team draft response
by Nurani Nimpuno 27 Aug '15

27 Aug '15

Dear Colleagues, As you know, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) has combined all proposals from the three operational communities and published a draft proposal. We are now in the public comment period where the ICG is asking for feedback on the proposal. I would like to encourage you all to submit your comments to the ICG, as described below. It it essential for the success of this transition, that it can show sufficient support from the Internet community. Please not that there is no obligation to respond to all the questions from the ICG, and also that a simple general expression of support is also helpful. Please feel free to use the attached CRISP Team response to the combined proposal as a reference in considering your comments. Kind regards, Nurani Vice-chair, CRISP ———————————— http://nro.net/crisp-team > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for submission of comment to the combined ICG proposal and the CRISP Team draft response > Date: 27 augusti 2015 01:30:06 CEST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > We would like to share the attached CRISP Team response to the draft IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for public comment. > > IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal: Call for Public Comment > https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per… > > As described in the call for Public Comment by the ICG: > > "It is critical that the ICG build a public record that reflects broad community support for the proposal and justifies the proposal’s conformance with the NTIA criteria before the proposal can be submitted to NTIA. > Thus, commenters are encouraged to file comments in support of the proposal even if they have no concerns to express about the proposal." > > You can contribute to the process in three ways as described below. > > 1. Submit your own comment to the ICG > We strongly encourage you to submit your comment to the ICG. > This helps the ICG to build public record that the combined proposal has support of the broad community. > > - It is not a requirement to respond to all questions from the ICG. > Submission of comments expressing a general support for the proposal itself would be helpful enough, without responding to specific aspects of the proposal. > - Please feel free to use the CRISP Team response as a reference, in considering contents for your own submission. > Words in bold letters cover a general observation which could be applicable to anyone in the Number Community. > Details specific to the CRISP Team are in italics. > > Deadline of the submission: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC > - You can submit your comment using the online form or by e-mail to <public-comments(a)ianacg.org>. > For details see: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per… > > 2. Help spread the word > Encourage others to submit comments to the ICG. > > 3. Express support to the CRISP Team response to the ICG > Support expressed by e-mail to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> before 7 September 2015 23:59 UTC will be recorded as the level of support from the Number Community to the CRISP Team response. > We will share this in our response to the ICG, but will not share the names of individuals who expressed support. We therefore encourage you to submit your own comment to the ICG in addition, as described in 1. > > > We are looking forward to your contributions in this important phase of the process, as an opportunity to express support towards the transition which will be lead to bottom-up, community based oversight mechanism for the IANA functions. > > > Best Regards, > > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno > on behalf of the CRISP Team > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 26th Teleconference Agenda and Webex Information - Wednesday August 26th 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 25 Aug '15

25 Aug '15

fyi. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 26th Teleconference Agenda and Webex Information - Wednesday August 26th 13:00 UTC > Date: 24 augusti 2015 14:52:50 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues > > Please find below agenda and webex information for next CRISP Team teleconference. > > Draft Agenda > > > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Meeting Notes > b. Update on communications plan > d. Update on IPR status > d. Update on CRISP Comment to the ICG > > 3. SLA ver.2 > > 4. AOB > --- > > JOIN WEBEX MEETING > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d… > Meeting number: 707 107 621 > Meeting password: crisp > > > JOIN BY PHONE > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 707 107 621 > > Global call-in numbers: > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532… > > regards > > German Valdez > NRO > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0