Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process released
Paul,
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.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
On 14/05/05 19:21, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
>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-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-20140408
>-20140428a.pdf
>
>
>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 âSteering Groupâ,
>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 âSteering Groupâ act and be referred to as a
>coordinating group with the primary role and responsibilities as proposed
>by the IAB.
>- That the âSteering Groupâ 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 ICANNâs 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.
>>>
>