Masato and all, As you may have seen, a final version has now been submitted in the name of the NRO. It is attached here. For this wishing to join ICANN's mailing list, send a "subscribe" message to ianatransition-request@icann.org And the archive is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/date.html Thanks for your feedback. Paul.
Attachment:
NRO to ICANN 20140508.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
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. > > 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. >>>> >> > >