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-08ap...
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.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/08 19:16, "Tony Smith" tony@apnic.net wrote:
Hi all
ICANN has released a draft process proposed for community discussion on
the IANA transition. A deadline of 8 May has been set for community
feedback on this process.
To view the draft process please visit:
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08a
pr14-en.htm
A short video from ICANN is also available here explaining the process and
next steps:
http://youtu.be/xyYOFgyuxQc
While ICANN has requested all feedback on the process should be submitted
to the ianatransition@icann.org mailing list, that does not preclude
discussion on this APNIC mailing list. A summary of feedback from this
list will be submitted to ICANN.
Thanks
Tony
IANAxfer mailing list
IANAxfer@apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
IANAxfer mailing list
IANAxfer@apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
On 30/04/2014, at 2:22 PM, Pablo Hinojosa pablo@apnic.net wrote:
Seems that the ICANN Board won't be able to veto the proposal coming from the Steering Group — this is what it means that the SG proposal won't be put to a vote.
Also, each affected party and ICANN will have a chance to endorse this proposal: I think this also means that if, for example, NRO (or APNIC?) doesn't like one bit of the proposal, they can say that in their endorsement? -- I see it more like a ratification process.
I am including Tony here as well, in case we would like to engage in this discussion on ianaxfer email list.
I think if we say that we will work on the proposal as an affected party and that we are ok with the process, is enough. I don't have a strong concern over this process.
Pablo
From: Paul Wilson pwilson@apnic.net
Date: Tuesday, 29 April 2014 8:31 PM
To: Craig Ng craig@apnic.net, Pablo Hinojosa pablo@apnic.net
Subject: Fwd: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process released
Thoughts?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com
Subject: Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process released
Date: 30 April 2014 10:35:50 AM AEST
To: Tony Smith tony@apnic.net, "ianaxfer@apnic.net" ianaxfer@apnic.net
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-08ap...
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?
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.
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.
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.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
On 14/04/08 19:16, "Tony Smith" tony@apnic.net wrote:
Hi all
ICANN has released a draft process proposed for community discussion on
the IANA transition. A deadline of 8 May has been set for community
feedback on this process.
To view the draft process please visit:
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08a
pr14-en.htm
A short video from ICANN is also available here explaining the process and
next steps:
http://youtu.be/xyYOFgyuxQc
While ICANN has requested all feedback on the process should be submitted
to the ianatransition@icann.org mailing list, that does not preclude
discussion on this APNIC mailing list. A summary of feedback from this
list will be submitted to ICANN.
Thanks
Tony
IANAxfer mailing list
IANAxfer@apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
IANAxfer mailing list
IANAxfer@apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
