[CRISP-TEAM] Teleconference with CWG chairs - informal notes

Mon May 4 04:53:56 CEST 2015

Michael and John,

> As you can see from the notes, another meeting with them is scheduled on 13th March, to share input from the CRISP Team on the names proposal.

It would be very helpful if we could have your analysis before this call.
Do you think you would be able to have a draft before this call, say within this week 8th May?

Thanks again for volunteering for this. If this is too tight, please let me know - I can also make more time for this.

Izumi

On 2015/05/02 11:19, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Thanks Nurani. I Totally agree with your observations.
> 
> 
> CRISP Team,
> As you can see from the notes, another meeting with them is scheduled on 13th March, to share input from the CRISP Team on the names proposal.
> We will not make any coordination or decisions at the call, the idea is to help them have a better understand on the context behind our comments, to be submitted through the public comments process.
> 
> Based on this, I'd like to start hearing your feedback about the names proposals - Based on the points clarified by the CWG Names Chairs as on the notes and possible considerations listed by Alissa on the IANAXFER list.
> 
> I am plannning to draft some points as a starting point of discussions but feel free to share your observations and comments if you have at this stage, not waiting for this.
> 
> 
> Izumi
> 
> On 2015/05/02 6:44, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please see below our rough, informal notes from our conference call with the CWG chairs last Thursday 30 April.
>>
>> Please note that these are not official minutes, but informal notes taken by Izumi and me. I have only today sent them to the CWG chairs to read so they have not had the chance yet to review them. 
>>
>> We wanted to share these notes with the CRISP team as early as possible, but if the CWG chairs have any corrections or clarifications, we will naturally convey those back to the group. 
>>
>> In general, we both found it to be a very constructive and useful teleconference. It gave us a clear idea of the names proposal and what issues may affect the numbers community.
>>
>> It was also very encouraging to hear that they too felt that cooperation and clear communication between the two communities at this stage is something that would benefit everyone.  
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Nurani
>>
>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Thank you and some follow up (Re: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions)
>>> From: Nurani Nimpuno 
>>> Date: 1 maj 2015 21:49:28 CEST
>>> Cc: Izumi Okutani, Jonathan Robinson, Paul Wilson, Alan Barrett
>>> To: Lise Fuhr
>>>
>>> Dear Jonathan and Lise,
>>>
>>> I have included some informal notes from our call last Thursday 30 April, below for your perusal. 
>>>
>>> We thought it useful to share them with you to ensure clarity. As we intend to report back the general points of our call to our community, we want to make sure we don't misrepresent anything you stated in the call. 
>>>
>>> As these are only rough notes, we don't intend to share them in its current form with our community, but please do let us know if there is anything in the notes below that does not properly reflect our discussion.
>>>
>>> Wishing you all a very good weekend!
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Nurani
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> COORDINATION CALL BETWEEN CRISP CHAIRS & CWG CHAIRS
>>> ===================================================
>>>
>>> Present:
>>> CWG-Stewardship Chairs: Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, CRISP Team Chair Izumi Okutani, CRISP Vice Chair Nurani Nimpuno, ICG member from NRO Paul Wilson
>>>
>>> ------
>>> * Introduction 
>>> (CWG-Stewardship Chairs: Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr)
>>>
>>> - The CWG-Stewardship proposal has been developed, conscious of the proposals submitted by the other operational communities (i.e Numbers and Protocol). 
>>> - The CWG proposal does not intend to impose any substantial changes to the proposals from the other operational communities
>>> - The aim when developing the CWG proposal has been to simplify the work of the ICG by attempting to produce a proposal that would be comparable and compatible with the other proposals on the table
>>> - The core concept is greater functional separation of the IANA functions from ICANN, through the creation of the PTI (Post transition IANA). But the PTI will continue within ICANN as its subsidiary
>>> - It is recognised that the position of potential separation does not reflect a desire to separate, but is rather a position of last resort. The inclusion of separability is rather seen as something that any sensible proposal should consider. 
>>>
>>> * Clarification questions
>>> (The CRISP Team Chair & Vice Chair, ICG member from NRO: Izumi Okutani, Nurani Nimpuno, Paul Wilson)
>>>
>>> a. Is PTI only responsible for names or all three functions?
>>> b. Would it be a fair understanding to see PTI has just changing an organisational hat of the IANA Function Operator from ICANN to PTI?
>>> c. Does it allow the RIRs to exchanges its own contract on the IANA Numbering Services? 
>>>   (Not expected for all three functions to have a single contract with PTI)
>>> d. Do you envisage that the RIRs exchange contracts for the Numbering Services with PTI instead of ICANN (and likewise the IETF to exchange contracts for the Protocol services with PTI)?
>>> e. What do you envisage the relationship between the CSC and the numbers Review Committee?
>>>
>>> * Key points:
>>>
>>> PTI (Q.a,Q.b)
>>> - The IANA functions operator (IFO) will change from ICANN to PTI. 
>>>  (It is like the IFO switching its organisational hat from ICANN to PTI)
>>> - PTI is a subsidiary of ICANN, therefore not a completely independent organisation from ICANN
>>> - The PTI is created to add separation between the policy development (ICANN) and IANA
>>> - ICANN will transfer its human resources and other relevant resources for the operation of the IANA functions to PTI. This includes all three IANA functions.
>>> - If only the names related function is to transfer to PTI, there may be practical and legal considerations 
>>> - The view within the CWG is that it is more simple to keep all functions together and transfer them together.
>>>
>>> Composition of PTI Board
>>> - Composition of the PTI Board is not yet decided. 
>>> - The role and scope of the PTI Board are also not yet clear
>>> - It is desirable to keep the PTI Board lightweight, but its composition would depend on the objectives and scope defined. 
>>> - One of the options invites representatives from the three operational communities to compose its Board (it is not the only option)
>>> - It helps for the numbers community to express what would be acceptable from its perspective in the public comments. They may not wholly want to rely on the CWG discussions, as the scope of the PTI board would affect whether or not the numbers community would want to be represented on the board.
>>>
>>> Impact on the SLA for the numbers and the Review Committee (Q.c,Q.d, Q.e)
>>> - PTI does allow separate contracts per IANA function
>>>  i.e., RIRs can exchange its own SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
>>> - If so desired the RIRs could have a contract with ICANN which further sub-delegates this function to PTI 
>>>  It is also possible for RIRs to exchange the contract directly with PTI
>>> - It is possible to accommodate the Review Committee proposed by the numbers proposal alongside the CWG proposal
>>> - If desired by the Numbers community to merge the CSC with the Review Committee, this would be need further coordination and discussions
>>> - May be worth considering to have liaisons between CSC and the Review Committee to exchange matrix on its review for example
>>>
>>> * AOB
>>> - For information to the CWG-Stewardship Chairs - Questions received for the numbers proposal: 
>>> - The numbers community does not observe an issue other than IPR which needs coordination with other operational communities 
>>>  This needs further dialogue and coordination with the names community
>>> - Other questions received so far on the numbers proposal are clarification questions
>>> - All parties agreed that this type of direct communication is very useful and that there should be further communication and coordination between the communities
>>>
>>> * Next Meeting
>>> - Wed 13th May 13:00 UTC
>>> - Nurani and Izumi will share comments to be submitted from the CRISP Team for the names proposal on public comment
>>> - The meeting is for background and information sharing, no decisions/coordination will take place
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 30 apr 2015, at 12:40, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Izumi,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for a very helpful call and a nice sum up of issues below. It is
>>>> important that we coordinate the understanding of the proposals and
>>>> implications, so I think we covered some very important issues today.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Lise
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>>>> Fra: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi at nic.ad.jp] 
>>>> Sendt: 30. april 2015 12:26
>>>> Til: Lise Fuhr; jrobinson at afilias.info
>>>> Cc: 'Nurani Nimpuno'; Paul Wilson; Alan Barrett
>>>> Emne: Thank you and some follow up (Re: Request for Communication with
>>>> CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions)
>>>>
>>>> Dear Jonathan and Lise,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for your time and for a constructive call today. It has
>>>> set many things clear to us, and appreciate that you have been considerate
>>>> about the proposals from the other operational communities so that it
>>>> doesn't require substantial coordination from this point. I found it
>>>> constructive and helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking just for myself and not as the CRISP Team Chair, it makes a lot of
>>>> sense to separate the bodies for the policy development (which stays with
>>>> the ICANN) and the IANA functions (the PTI).
>>>>
>>>> I've listed here a few points to follow up after our call. 
>>>> I welcome additional comments if you have, from anyone receiving this
>>>> e-mail, including suggestions about discussions for the coming call.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * FAQ for the Numbers Proposal:
>>>> FYI, this is the FAQ for the numbers proposal. We are open to any other
>>>> questions about our proposal.
>>>>
>>>> Internet Numbers Community Proposal FAQ
>>>> https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/internet-numb
>>>> ers-community-proposal-faq
>>>>
>>>> * IPR:
>>>> We unfortunately didn't have time to cover in details about the IPR at this
>>>> call. This is certainly an issue we would like to continue the dialogue with
>>>> you and make sure the names community is comfortable with our proposal and a
>>>> direction forward. We would be interested to hear your input on what would
>>>> be the best way to coordinate on this, including withthe IETF.
>>>>
>>>> * The Next Call:
>>>> I am looking forward to our next meeting on Wed 13th May UTC13:00-14:00. 
>>>> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-dt-stewardship/
>>>>
>>>> - I suggest an 1h call like this time.
>>>> - Nurani and I will share major points of the comment from the numbers
>>>> community and open to any questions you may have.
>>>> - We hope this to be a helpful opportunity for you to have a better
>>>> understanding about comments to be expected from the numbers community.
>>>>  (The idea is not to make decisions or coordination here)
>>>>
>>>> * Engaging ICG Members for the Names and the Numbers:
>>>> I have added Alan Barrett and Paul Wilson as the ICG members from the NRO in
>>>> the e-mail-  as I believe it helps to keep them closely engaged for any
>>>> coordination which may be needed through the ICG.
>>>> Participation from ICG members representing the names functions are welcome.
>>>> Please do feel free to invite them if appropriate in your views. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Izumi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>
> 