On Jul 16, 2014, at 11:56 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> for info on the IANA coordination group from an ISOC list https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/ianaxfer/
> 
> Again on the issue of GAC seats.  GAC does work in regions, five makes sense for them to use to gather/share information. 
> 
> What's missing in the discussion of stakeholder groups below is that by any standard when we consider multistakeholder arrangements govt are a distinct group.
>  
> I agree but what i don't agree on is the fact that you think it is okay to adjust things after we all (including govt as a stakeholder) has earlier agreed on the formation! Perhaps I would have been the first to +1 your valid comment if the formation was still under discussion, but that is not the case. IMO going the route you are suggesting creates un-necessary precedence and starts to put the CG in a decision making position which should be avoided!
> 


Sean, as far as I'm aware the GAC have never agreed.  They made their request in London, it's in the communique as GAC advice to the board.  That's significant.   They've asked for five seats, they are a critical stakeholder group, on what grounds can we deny their request?   People too quickly forget their commitments to the multistakeholder model.



>  In the coordinating group they are being treated as equal to ALAC, ISOC, IETF, IAB (can anyone explain the distinction between these three in this CG context)
> 
> Here comes the number thing....while you may be right (excluding ALAC ofcourse). I think the point for me is not whether they have equal number, the point is that the group has now become "READ ONLY" and changing the number at this point should not be entertained.
>  


I think you're wrong about the timing.  It's broken, and needs fixing.


> and somehow less deserving that ccNSO, GNSO, RIR+NRO (there is no difference, they are one in the same).
> 
> If you ask me, one could still equate ccNSO to GAC


Talking about representation of stakeholders in a multistakeholder process and country code managers have more weight that their national governments?  No.

We're talking about a political process.  The IANA transition didn't kick off as a result of technical or operational problems.  Not having GAC represented in a way that allows them to participate effectively and as they have requested make no sense.



> and i am sure you will agree that the names(ccNSO+GNSO) and numbers (RIR+NRO) are 2 distinct community.
> 

They are distinct, and they are currently have many more reps than the world's governments.  Again, it makes no sense.

Adam



> Milton, please support five GAC reps on the committee.
> 
> -1 
> 
> Cheers!
> Adam
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Narelle Clark <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:26 PM
> Subject: [IANAxfer] Fwd: Update from position zero in the NTIA IANA transfer of stewardship
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> Fwding as promised - for your inputs, also while we get the Connect forum established and consolidate the inputs.
> 
> N
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Narelle Clark <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:04 AM
> Subject: Update from position zero in the NTIA IANA transfer of stewardship
> To: Chapter Delegates <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 
> [note: NISTCG == NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition Co-ordination Group == CG ]
> 
> Evening everyone!
> 
> Here is an update from me - I propose to send something fairly similar out to the ianaxfer@isoc and AC lists. Also there is a new connect group that is being set up. Once I get set up over there.
> 
> What follows is a mixture of recollections, reflections and ideas from me. We will need to break out (fork) the topics - right now it is late and I don't want to delay this message any further. To give Demi and I some assitance, Sally, Konstantinos and Olaf will be locate and send through the extra information we all need, and help sort this essay (stream of consciousness??) into topics over on Connect.
> 
> -------------------8<--------------------------------8<-----------------------8<-----------------------8<-----------
> 
> The Story So Far
> =================
> So far the NISTCG has had one official teleconference and there was fairly strong agreement that we were keen to get going, set out a clear path forward, and to focus on the essential IANA piece whilst ensuring we categorise the myriad of other issues appropriately.
> 
> Quite a few people didn't get to the teleconference because appointments haven't been finalised, or it was too short notice. If you look at:
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en
> all but the GAC reps are there, but a number have only just joined. More on that further in the message.
> 
> The first real meeting is in London later this week  - it will be streamed live, with translations, and many of the group will be there. Demi will, however I will be attending remotely due to work commitments.
> 
> The IETF reps et al have put together a draft agenda for the London meeting and CG members have had a chance to comment.  That agenda appears at the bottom of this message. It should go forward fairly unchanged.
> 
> It was agreed the charter and purpose of the group needs real clarity and agreement and soon.
> 
> The topic of whether the GAC should get three extra members was briefly discussed. It seemed to be the case that there is an argument the GAC should get its five nominees on the basis that should any stakeholder group feel strongly disenfranchised then in the long term they will also probably disavow any proposal that consensus was reached. OTOH the group is 27 already, and arguably its role is coordination, thus two should be adequate. They will argue that they have five regions and each needs its position put.  It can also be argued that there have been discussions aplenty already about the membership of the group and reopening those would be counterproductive. ALAC could conceivably put the same argument, as could the RIRs... and then how many do we end up with?
> 
> A solution could be that the group sticks with the 2 reps for the GAC and give 3 more some sort of elevated observer status, as per EU meetings and other diplomatic forums.
> 
> The timeframe for an effective process has been raised. In the interests of ideal governance you take as long as it takes. However, if this all takes too long it will collide with the US elections and the appetite for change may be lost or worse. Thus the 30 Sept has a lot of merit, but realistically that would need closure by 31 July (or earlier) given contract time frames.
> 
> -------------------8<--------------------------------8<-----------------------8<-----------------------8<----------- 
> 
> Reflections for ISOC
> =================
> There is also the timeframe issue: what process do we - ISOC - want to use to consult with our members/stakeholders?
> 
> Surely what is needed is this type of process:
> 
> Definition phase--> Call for proposals--> Consult & Review proposals --> Recommend
> 
> Each piece (between the arrows) also has a community review/discussion aspect that runs over each piece in the time frame allotted.
> 
> In parallel the CG should undertake some risk and governance frameworks to provide some extra input and checking.
> 
> Scope and Charter
> =================
> Right now we are in Phase 0 : what is the scope and charter ISOC wants for this group?
> 
> Does the CG/NISTCG write proposals? Does it make decisions?
> 
> What is in scope, and what is out of scope? For what is out of scope, where do those issues go?
> 
> What is utterly non-negotiable as for scope, and what can be lost?
> 
> I hope we can agree that the essential piece is the ongoing reliable function of IANA - the database - in one complete piece with a set of operational performance parameters. Those things are enough of a task to define.
> 
> After that, what should also be considered? 
> 
> Where are the boundaries?
> 
> The IAB and IETF have started by putting together some really solid proposals. Paul Wilson has written a brilliant piece on the IANA functions:
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140713_breaking_it_down_the_iana_transition_in_practical_pieces/
> 
> And then there's a great RFC:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6220.txt
> 
> I'll post through sample charters as they come up, but we can certainly submit proposals!
> 
> 
> 
> THOUGHTS? COMMENTS?
> 
> 
> -------------------8<--------------------------------8<-----------------------8<-----------------------8<----------- 
> Proposed Agenda
> 
> == Day 1 ==
> 9:00 - 9:15
> Introduction and level-setting.
> Brief explanation of why we are gathered to meet.
> 
> 9:15 - 10:45
> Introductions.
> It would be useful to hear from each rep about:
> - What group appointed them
> - What that group does and who participates in it
> - How that group does its work and what its decision processes are
> - Whether they are "representing" their groups or participating as individuals in the CG
> - How they view their group's work in relation to the coordination group's work
> 
> 
> 10:45 - 11:00
> Break.
> 
> 11:00 - 12:30
> Charter of the CG. (IETF)
> It would be good to obtain a shared understanding in the whole group of the role and charter of the CG. Charter proposals circulated in advance of July 17 would help here -- on the  IETF/IAB side we may be able to work one up based on the IAB's April 29 comments.
> 
> 12:30 - 13:30
> Lunch.
> 
> Continued discussion of charter.
>  
> 13:30 - 15:00
> Transition scope and expectations about work in the communities. (IAB) It would be good to clarify the CG’s understanding of the scope of the work of the transition,  what the community processes need to produce, and where/how areas of overlap will be handled. We will want to communicate this publicly if we get agreement on it.
> 
> 
> 15:00 - 16:15
> Coordination group participation.
> Having hopefully developed some shared understanding of the charter of the CG and the  work expected in the communities, it would be good to verify that the composition of the  CG is suitable for its tasks and to resolve any outstanding questions concerning group  representation in the CG.
> 
> 
> 16:15 - 16:30
> Break.
> 
> 16:30 - 17:30
> Self-organization.
> Initial discussion about how the CG wants to organize itself, e.g., do we want a chair and/or vice-chair, do we need to form sub-groups for any particular tasks, how will we select people for these things. I think it would be good to talk about this on the first day and try to come to some conclusions, and then make the decisions on the second day. If people know they would like to serve in a particular role, they could make that known to the group.
> 
> 
> 17:30 - 18:00
> Parking lot for items we want to come back to before day 2 or in case we run over time.
> 
> 
> == Day 2 ==
> 9:00 - 9:45
> Parking lot for leftover charter/community work/CG participation discussion items from yesterday.
> 
> 9:45 - 10:15
> Internal and external communications needs.
> Whether the CG needs public and/or private mailing lists for its own work, whether we should stand up our own web site, where that site should be hosted, what we would use the web site for, what we think about ICANN’s web-based platform and whether it should continue to exist and/or be replaced by other list(s).
> 
> 10:15 - 10:30
> Break.
> 
> 10:30 - 11:45
> Secretariat tasks and selection.
> ICANN will be selecting an independent secretariat for the CG. To make this selection, they will need an RFP. So the CG needs to agree on what the secretariat's responsibilities will be, and possibly needs to come up with that RFP (or work on it together with ICANN). Again having a draft RFP going into the meeting might be a useful thing.
> 
> 11:45 - 12:45
> Lunch.
> 
> Self-organization, continued.
> If we're ready by this point, we could solicit candidates for chair/vice chair/whatever other positions we think we need and hear from them each briefly about what they would bring to the role(s).
> 
> 
> 12:45 - 13:30
> Complete self-organization.
> 
> 
> 13:30 - 14:15
> Timeline. (IETF)
> It would be good to get some agreement about the drop-dead date for the final proposal to be submitted to NTIA (assuming they need some lead time to review it and socialize it within  the USG before the contract actually expires). We can then work backwards from there and set goals for when it would be good to have the community discussions come to a close. As with the charter, it would be helpful for someone to come up with a proposal for this in advance of the meeting. Jari has provided a proposal for this.
> 
> 
> 14:15 - 15:00
> CG meeting/conference call schedule.
> We need to figure out how often we'd like to have calls and when our face-to-face meetings will be. This would be another good item to have a proposal for in advance.
> 
> 15:00 - 15:45
> Parking lot for any item we need to come back to.
> 
> 15:45 - 16:00
> Break.
> 
> 
> 16:00 - 16:30
> Parking lot for any item we need to come back to.
> 
> 16:30 - 17:00
> Summary and wrap-up.
> 
> 
> best regards
> 
> 
> Narelle
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> Narelle Clark
> President and Board Member
> Internet Society of Australia
> ph: 0412 297 043
> int ph: +61 412 297 043
> [log in to unmask]
> www.isoc-au.org.au
> The Internet is for Everyone!
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> Narelle Clark
> President and Board Member
> Internet Society of Australia
> ph: 0412 297 043
> int ph: +61 412 297 043
> [log in to unmask]
> www.isoc-au.org.au
> The Internet is for Everyone!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IANAxfer mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> alt email: [log in to unmask]
> 
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>