Thank you for sharing the draft.
I can support it as written.
It is trivial, but I think "Web-based platform" in proposed mechanisms
is
a little bit odd,
since it is too details compared with other proposed mechanisms and
also
I'm not sure
whether it includes e-mail based discussion which we often use.
Anyway, I think we don't need to mention it as it is trivial.
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-proposa
l-
08
apr14-en.htm
[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-2014
04
08
-20140428a.pdf
We offer the following comments in response to these documents:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Finally, we support the comments from the IAB, and in particular
we
agree:
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.
coordinating group with the primary role and responsibilities as
proposed
by the IAB.
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-prop
>>os
>> al
>> -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.
>