[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: Invitation to a panel discussion with the ICANN Board on 25 April

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Apr 24 22:15:39 CEST 2015 

CRISP Team,


As more information on the ICANN Board Panel, this is what has been shared by ICANN just an hour and half ago.

Would have liked to have it discussed at the CRISP Team call if I found out earlier.

What I have in mind to talk about is below.

I imagine it's COB for most of you already (It's already Saturday morning in Tokyo) but I welcome your feedback, if you have time to see this and have comments, before the call on 15:30-17:00UTC 25h April.
I would appreciate it you could share this before UTC 13:00 25th April, so I have some time to think about how to incoroporate. Thanks!

 - In terms of the transition process, transparency is extremely important. This importance has been confirmed community discussions at RIR forums.
   We have requested the RIRs to be transparent in the process and trus the RIRs will stand by this.
   We expect further coordination is to come throught the ICG but in case there rises any situation to consider changes to the proposals developed from the community, it should be communicated in transparent manner to the community 
   with rationale on what this reconsideration is needed. It would be helpful if ICANN Board can gives this assurance in any area ICANN would be involved.

 - From this timing, close communication between the three operational communities is needed, not necessarily only through the ICG.
   If each of the operational communities would highlight and publicly share what needs coordination with other operational communities, it would be very helpful.
   From the numbers, it is IPR. We have shared this at ICANN52 but if there is additional better way in communicating this, happy to consider it.
   The numbers are open to talk and communicate with the chairs of the other operational communities as a way of deepning the understanding of each others situation.
   With the note that coordination should be take place through the ICG and no decisions are to be made.

 - In terms of the condition of the transition, stability is the priority. to do this, keep changes to the minimum, focus on elements what is affected by the stewardship transition from the NTIA.
   There seems to be misunderstanding that the numbers community wishes to move away from the ICANN. We simply want to have the ability for the numbers community to chose the IANA operator.
   This is what the NTIA IANA contract says today, and we are simply replacing this to the community, as a part of the stewarship transition to the bottom up, global, multistakeholder community.

   As a related point, concerns have been expressed on this may destabilize the system or lead.
   It is hard to imagine a situation where the numbers community would wish to move to the IANA operator at the risk of operational stability, as this would affect the services they will be receiving.
   This balance will be kept even more than the NTIA as it is in the numbers community to maintain stable and reliable operation.

 - Accurate understanding of the current status and implications of the proposals are important.
   The numbers community have prepared FAQ and slides of our proposal. We would be happy to consider adding more information to be shared on the numbers to deepen understanding so input is welcome.
   If ICANN Board could consider ways to communicate such information within the responsibilities and activities of the ICANN, it would be helpful, in having stakeholders outside the numbers community understand better about our 
   current arragements and the proposal.


Izumi


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Invitation to a panel discussion with the ICANN Board on 25 April
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:22:55 +0000
From: Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org>


All,
For those of you joining us tomorrow for our video panel, I just wanted to let you know how we plan to run the panel tomorrow.  

We will structure it as a brainstorm - the idea is for you and the Board to hear from each other where you think we need to focus our efforts to conclude this process. I'll come to each of you participating and ask you to provide a five minute overview of the key issues you see from your community/your experience that the ICANN Board needs to consider to ensure the oversight transition is successfully completed.  Once we've heard from all of you, I'll turn the discussion over to the Board members and ask them to share their priorities .  The goal of the session is to share priorities and ensure everyone is best positioned to work collaboratively towards completion. 

Looking forward to talking to you tomorrow - do let Theresa or I know if you need any more information. 
Best wishes
Sally

> On 21 Apr 2015, at 20:08, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> All, 
> 
> Thank you for the emails and suggestions. We thought it may be better to
> just have one panel, rather than try to have two. And having this panel
> focus on the range of topics already flagged on this list.
> 
> We are looking at the time-slot of 8:30-10:00 AM US Pacific (15:30-17:00
> UTC). The IT team is looking at the logistics, but video connection should
> work whether Skype or other. More on that shortly.
> 
> Michelle, can you send out the calendar invite?
> 
> On topics, those provided in Izumi's note and Jari's points are good -
> capturing them here -
> - jurisdiction, 
> - impact of postponing submission date to the NTIA,
> - ICANN-IANA function operator superagility, etc.
> 
> - mismatch between traditional bargaining politics in the cabinets and open
> community processes.
> 
> To Izumi's question - as the operational community proposals are
> understood, seems this is an opportunity for short overview of key
> elements, but more time on themes relevant to moving to the next phase of
> the transition. 
> 
> I've added Sally onto this exchange as she's kindly agreed to moderate the
> panel. 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Theresa
> 
>> On 4/21/15 2:40 PM, "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I thought Izumi���s questions were good. FWIW, I think one
>> of the political issues that we should consider is the mismatch
>> between traditional bargaining politics in the cabinets and open
>> community processes. Once you have gone open, it is difficult
>> to come back��� nor should we.
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
>>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 12:59, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Steve,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Assuming for now that both panel 3 and 4 will be covered by the same
>>> members, I have some questions on the topic for the panel discussions.
>>> 
>>> Is there a particular aspect(s) of the political issues you have in
>>> mind to cover for Panel 3?
>>> e.g. jurisdiction, impact of postponing submission date to the NTIA,
>>> ICANN-IANA function operator superagility, etc.
>>> 
>>> I have a similar question for Panel 4 - whether there is a particular
>>> point(s) ICANN Board would like to focus on the community panel, or it
>>> is expected for each community to share the current status (which is no
>>> change in the proposal for the numbers, working on implementation).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Izumi
>>> 
>>>> On 2015/04/17 21:04, Theresa Swinehart wrote:
>>>> All, 
>>>> 
>>>> To follow-on on Steve's note, thank you for your quick responses back,
>>>> and
>>>> for joining! We'll follow-up shortly on additional logistical
>>>> information on
>>>> video connection/IT approach to the session. I'll also follow-up with
>>>> any
>>>> other preparations.
>>>> 
>>>> Vinciane, Michelle, please have a calendar invite sent out to this
>>>> group for
>>>> the suggested time slot for the 25th.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks all ��� 
>>>> 
>>>> Kind regards, 
>>>> 
>>>> Theresa
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From:  Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>
>>>> Date:  Thursday, April 16, 2015 12:17 PM
>>>> To:  "steve at shinkuro.com" <steve at shinkuro.com>, Jari Arkko
>>>> <jari.arkko at piuha.net>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>, Axel
>>>> Pawlik <axel.pawlik at ripe.net>, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>,
>>>> "<jrobinson at afilias.info>" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>>>> Cc:  "steve at shinkuro.com" <steve at shinkuro.com>, Vinciane Koenigsfeld
>>>> <vinciane.koenigsfeld at icann.org>, Michelle Bright
>>>> <michelle.bright at icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart
>>>> <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>
>>>> Subject:  Re: Invitation to a panel discussion with the ICANN Board on
>>>> 25
>>>> April 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Steve
>>>> 
>>>> I could make it and am flexible in the time slot you have provided.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards, 
>>>> Byron
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network.
>>>> From: Steve Crocker
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:10 PM
>>>> To: Jari Arkko; Andrew Sullivan; Axel Pawlik (axel.pawlik at ripe.net);
>>>> izumi at nic.ad.jp; Byron Holland; <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>>>> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Vinciane Koenigsfeld; Michelle Bright; Theresa
>>>> Swinehart
>>>> Subject: Invitation to a panel discussion with the ICANN Board on 25
>>>> April
>>>> 
>>>> Jari, Andrew, Axel, Izumi, Byron, Jonathan,
>>>> 
>>>> I hope this note finds you well.  I want  to invite you to join us for
>>>> a
>>>> video panel and brainstorming session during our upcoming ICANN Board
>>>> Workshop on Saturday, April 25.  The subject is, of course, IANA
>>>> Stewardship
>>>> Transition.  For this session we'd like to have 2 moderated video
>>>> panels to
>>>> discuss and share views on both the political and community themes
>>>> around
>>>> the transition, with the following agenda:
>>>> 1. Opening (Steve Crocker)
>>>> 2. Overview of the transition
>>>> 3. Panel to discuss the political issues around the transition
>>>> 4. Panel of leadership representation from the IETF/IAB, RIR/CRISP,
>>>> CCNSO
>>>> and GNSO
>>>> 5. Discussion (all)
>>>> The panel addressing political issues would be encouraged to stay for
>>>> the
>>>> community panel, and likewise the community panel is invited to
>>>> participate
>>>> in the discussions following the political panel.
>>>> 
>>>> The timing on the 25th would be a 1 hour window between 1530 UTC -1730
>>>> UTC
>>>> (8.30���10.30 US Pacific time). We have some flexibility to adjust the
>>>> time if
>>>> needed to accommodate panelist schedules.
>>>> 
>>>> Would you be available to join for this session?  We'd welcome an open
>>>> dialogue to share views, and thoughts.
>>>> 
>>>> Please let us know if there's a period in the window of 1530 ��� 1730
>>>> UTC that
>>>> works better for you, and we'll aim to adjust the schedule accordingly.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards and thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Steve Crocker
>>>> Chairman, ICANN Board
>>

More information about the CRISP mailing list