[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: SV: Thank you and some follow up (Re: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions)

[Nurani Nimpuno]

Dear colleagues,

Please note the correction below by Lise in the informal notes from our call last Thursday. 

Thanks,

Nurani



Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Lise Fuhr" 
> Date: 5 maj 2015 13:40:51 CEST
> To: "'Nurani Nimpuno'"
> Cc: "'Izumi Okutani'", "Jonathan Robinson", "'Paul Wilson'", "'Alan Barrett'"
> Subject: SV: Thank you and some follow up (Re: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions)
> 
> Dear Nurani,
> 
> Thank you for your informal notes, they are very helpful. I think one needs
> to be corrected though.
> 
> "The view within the CWG is that it is more simple to keep all functions
> together and transfer them together." This is not the view of the CWG, but
> my personal view from a practical perspective - there might be several other
> reasons not to do so, and this is not a view of the CWG.
> 
> Best,
> Lise
> 
> 
> 
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Nurani Nimpuno [mailto:nurani at netnod.se] 
> Sendt: 1. maj 2015 21:49
> Til: Lise Fuhr
> Cc: Izumi Okutani; Jonathan Robinson; Paul Wilson; Alan Barrett
> Emne: Re: Thank you and some follow up (Re: Request for Communication with
> CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions)
> 
> 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/interne
>> t-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
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150505/ab4bc678/attachment.html>