Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process released
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.
>
>
>>
>> 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 â 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