Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Draft IANA discussion process released
Hi Masato,
Personally I agree with you: option b) makes most sense for us.
I think the concern with a wider scope is in 2 respects:
- The timeframe is already a challenge, with enough to do in this period without adding unnecessarily to the scope. And especially when additions are likely to increase the uncertainty about reaching agreement at all within the timeframe, or even within an extended period. If the success of the overall process is threatened then this is a concern to the IP addressing community, of course.
IMHO, it is reasonable that those with expectations of IANA in the future want to be certain that their needs are not ruled out by the transition process (as stated in the NRO comments), however it is not realistic to try to accommodate every possible need and expectation of IANA during the coming 15 months.
The key here is the ICANN accountability process, which needs to ensure future evolution of the ICANN system, and which I agree needs to be satisfactorily reviewed before the transition is finalised. As you may know, ICANN has recently announced a new accountability review, here:
https://new.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-05-07-en
- Secondly, the NTIA announcement itself calls clearly for a very specific plan, related to transition of the role that NTIA plays, and nothing more:
> As the first step, NTIA is asking the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS).
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
It makes sense to respect this scope, particularly in light of the above, and an expansion of scope into unexpected areas may well threaten the acceptability of the plan to the NTIA and others in the USG.
My opinions only.
Paul.
As I said during ICANN 49 in Singapore, I do think the timeframe is achievable
On 09/05/2014, at 8:05 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@japan-telecom.com> wrote:
> 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 “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-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.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>