Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process released
Paul,
While NRO (also IAB and ISOC) support current scope document by ICANN,
almost all other comments,
in particular from domain operators, are against for that.
And, I think this point will be one of major topics in next step.
So, is it possible to clarify NRO's position for this point?
a) actively defend current scope document
b) keep neutral position unless proposed changes would be harmful for NRO
and RIRs
c) support changing current scope document.
IMO, b) is reasonable position as NRO and RIRs, since we propose to split
this discussion to 3 areas,
which are domain names, IP address and AS numbers, and protocols, and this
point is raised mainly by domain communities.
Rgs,
Masato
On 14/05/07 18:11, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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-201404
>>>08
>>> -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-propos
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>