Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process released
On 07/05/2014, at 1:28 PM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@japan-telecom.com> wrote:
> 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.
I had the same thought in fact. I think they are saying that the process should be fully accessible online, which is of course important.
Thanks.
Paul.
>
> 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 “Steering Group”,
>> 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 “Steering Group” act and be referred to as a
>> coordinating group with the primary role and responsibilities as proposed
>> by the IAB.
>> - That the “Steering Group” 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 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-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.
>>>>
>>
>
>