Masato, here is a draft response which is currently being considered at the moment.
Comments from community members including yourself would be more than welcome, in the short time available.
Paul.
====
DRAFT
We have considered ICANN's Call for Public Input in relation to the transition of IANA stewardship, and the associated scoping document, which are located at:
[i] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08ap...
[ii] http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping- 08apr 14-en.pdf
We have also considered other contributions, in particular that of the IAB, which is located at:
[iii] http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2014/04/iab-response-to-20140408-2...
We offer the following comments in response to these documents:
1. We support the proposed scope[ii] of the transition proposal, which excludes IANA policy development processes, the question of the IANA operator, and any issues which are not within the scope of IANA functions. Such questions remain important and may continue to be discussed elsewhere, and they should remain unaffected by the development of the transition proposal, or by the transition of IANA oversight responsibilities. At the same time, the transition proposal should in no way limit the future solutions or options which are available in any of these areas.
2. We support the guiding principles and mechanisms as proposed in [i]. We agree that these are consistent both with established norms for such processes within our communities, and with the large majority of inputs received so far from the ICANN community.
3. We agree that the ICANN Board must respect and adopt the outcome of the entire development process, as reported by the “Steering Group”, without a vote; providing that the process has been conducted in accordance with the scope, principles and mechanisms as proposed.
4. Finally, we support the comments from the IAB, and in particular we agree:
- That each of the 3 communities of interest in IANA functions be offered the primary responsibility to produce respective transition plans, in accordance both with their own established processes, and with the defined scope, principles and mechanisms. In the case of the IP addressing community, encompassing 5 regional communities, there are well-defined policy development and oversight mechanisms existing at the regional and global levels, which would be applied with complete transparency on this process.
- That the “Steering Group” act and be referred to as a coordinating group with the primary role and responsibilities as proposed by the IAB.
- That the “Steering Group” operate on the basis of rough consensus, rather than voting.
We offer this input as a constructive contribution to this process, and we look forward to ICANN’s final proposal for the process of developing the transition proposal. However regardless of that proposal, we will undertake comprehensive consultations within our own communities over the coming year, in an effort to reach broad consensus on stewardship arrangements which will best ensure the future stability, security, transparency and integrity of IANA functions, particularly in relation to IP addressing.
On 06/05/2014, at 9:47 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Paul and Tony,
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this
is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed
approach.
Do you have any update for the joint response among NRO?
The deadline is May 8th midnight in UTC.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/29 22:02, "Paul Wilson" pwilson@apnic.net wrote:
On 30/04/2014, at 10:35 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com
wrote:
Tony and All,
While the deadline is reaching in next week, do we have any planned
feedback for this draft process as APNIC?
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-0
8apr14-en.htm
Hi Masato and thanks for your queries.
Yes, there will likely be a joint response provided by the NRO, and this
is under discussion. I will send an update shortly of the proposed
approach.
IMO, I have one question and one concern for this proposed process.
(while not directly related with principals and mechanisms which are
currently asked feedbacks)
Question: What is the difference between "vote" and "review" in next
two steps? How will ICANN review it without voting?
APNIC staff's interpretation follows below.
The ICANN Board in overseeing ICANN's role as convener would: 1)
ensure that the process executed adheres to the principles outlined by
the community input and the NTIA principles outlined for this effort,
and 2) ensure that the parameters of the scope document are upheld.
Once a proposal is developed, the ICANN Board will not hold a vote on
the proposal.
I believe that the intention here is for ICANN Board to act as an
"umpire" to ensure that the process has been carried out correctly, but
not to undertake a vote to actually approve the proposal.
You may ask how the ICANN board, as umpire, would decide that the process
had not been followed; and I assume that a vote could be involved. But
in that case the vote would be on the process and not the proposal.
The steering group's final proposal for submission to NTIA will be
reviewed by ICANN and the affected parties in order for each party to
provide their endorsement of the proposal. That endorsement will be
communicated with the proposal, but there will not be a formal voting
process.
I believe that this paragraph is intended to set ICANN on a equal footing
with other affected parties. I think that each affected party (including
ICANN) is expected to independently submit its endorsement of the
proposal, to be communicated to the NTIA. But I agree that the reference
to "formal voting" here is unclear and should be clarified.
Concern: Among 5 RIRs, only APNIC doesn't have any physical meeting
before ICANN 50 on Jun 22-25 where the steering group will be formed.
(ARIN had a meeting in Apr, LACNIC, RIPE, and AFRINIC will have it in
May)
We need to carefully consider how we can gather community feedback from
AP region without physical meeting.
This mailing list was established to allow exactly this kind of
discussion and feedback; I expect that we will use it increasingly from
this point onwards, and of course we will need to discuss this process
during the September meeting in Brisbane.
Best regards
Paul.