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.
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.
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-
08apr14-en.htm
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