Hi Seun,
there are no call for comments yet, I interpret it as a kind of heads-up of
what we should expect. 4 tracks in parallel . which have dependencies, may
mean a lot of work and coordination to have consistent outcome.
regarding the update on transition process comments, there are some in the
blog post :"The next few weeks will be spent reading all of the input,
analyzing it and ultimately producing a revised transition process
framework before ICANN 50 in June 2014." . it seems that we have to wait
for some time.
Best Regards,
Rafik
2014-05-21 16:48 GMT+09:00 Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hello Rafik,
>
> Are there general official call for comments for the last 2 tracks? My
> understanding is that some comments on IANA transition process suggested
> that those last 2 be addressed by their relevant stakeholder.
>
> I think it will be good to have ICANN provide the final version of the
> transition process as all the tracks somehow depends on it.
>
> Regards
> PS: I don't seem to have seen any update from ICANN on the process in
> response to comments made.
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 21 May 2014 02:15, "Rafik Dammak" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> below you will find a blog post from Fadi Chehade , the ICANN CEO,
>> describing what he perceives as 4 tracks for the IANA transition, in
>> particular the 2 last and new tracks. we may agree or disagree with this
>> vision since ICANN is an interested party by the outcome of the transition.
>> that is why we commented about the process for the IANA transition and
>> working on commenting the ICANN accountability.
>>
>> it also means for us 4 tracks to follow closely and comment in due time
>> to represent non-commercial interests. it is a challenge if we add also the
>> comment regarding the ICANN strategy plan and other important ongoing
>> policies to comment e,g New directory service, DNS in developing countries.
>>
>> it is important to have enough volunteers on those areas and share
>> workload to be effective. I welcome any practical suggestion of how to
>> cope with this flow of issues. I acknowledge that volunteering may need
>> some learning curve, but volunteers will be supported and get help from
>> "veterans" and NCSG officers. the drafting is also a collaborative work who
>> need someone to take the led to initiate it and then bringing other to
>> comments, ask questions and make edits.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: David Olive <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 2014-05-21 6:18 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Transition from U.S. Government has Four Work
>> Tracks -Blog By Fadi Chehadé
>> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://blog.icann.org/
>>
>> http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/transition-from-u-s-government-has-four-work-tracks/
>>
>> *Transition from U.S. Government has Four Work Tracks *
>>
>> By Fadi Chehadé
>>
>>
>>
>> Nine weeks have passed since the U.S. government announced its intention
>> to transition stewardship of the IANA functions to the global community.
>> This landmark announcement requires a measured, thoughtful approach for how
>> we – the Internet community – will map a route to a successful transition.
>> Together, we must pool our efforts with a goal of producing an acceptable
>> and timely proposal for a smooth transition.
>>
>>
>>
>> What is most important is that our transition process is open and
>> inclusive, while maintaining a discipline and focus that will ensure our
>> success within a reasonable timeline. I see our work ahead as divided into
>> four concurrent tracks, and wanted to update you on where we are on each
>> track.
>>
>>
>>
>> *1. Transition of U.S. government stewardship of IANA functions at ICANN*
>>
>> By the end of Thursday, 8 May, the community submitted more than 1,000
>> emails and comments<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/date.html#start>with feedback on the proposed process framework for the U.S. government
>> stewardship transition process, which ICANN is facilitating. Comments were
>> received online, via social media, emails as well as through two public
>> dialogues at ICANN 49 in Singapore and the NETmundial meeting in Brazil.
>> These comments<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/date.html#start>will lead to a revised transition process framework.
>>
>>
>>
>> The goal of the process is for the global community to produce a
>> transition proposal to the U.S. government. According to the National
>> Telecommunications and Information Administration, this proposal must
>> have broad community support and must not replace NTIA with a
>> government-led or inter-governmental solution.
>>
>>
>>
>> The next few weeks will be spent reading all of the input, analyzing it
>> and ultimately producing a revised transition process framework before
>> ICANN 50 in June 2014.
>>
>>
>>
>> *2. Strengthen ICANN accountability*
>>
>> Two weeks ago we began a community discussion<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/enhancing-accountability-06may14-en.htm>on enhancement of ICANN’s accountability through the posting of a
>> background document and questions for input. This dialogue is open to all.
>> Please provide your comment<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/enhancing-accountability-06may14-en.htm>
>> s until 27 May on how ICANN (the organization) should be accountable to
>> you after the transition of the IANA stewardship. Your thoughts are welcome
>> on how we can strengthen existing accountability mechanisms like the Affirmation
>> of Commitments<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm>.
>> Additionally, your insights will help us assess ICANN’s redress mechanisms,
>> and explore new accountability mechanisms where necessary. We expect
>> ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to finalize the
>> participants in a new community Working Group that will guide this process,
>> so that work can begin during ICANN’s 50th Public Meeting in London in
>> June.
>>
>>
>>
>> *3. Maintain security and stability of implementation of the root zone
>> updates*
>>
>> Currently, the process flow for root zone management involves three roles
>> that are performed by three different entities: NTIA as the Administrator,
>> ICANN as the Operator<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order>,
>> and Verisign as the Maintainer. After the transition, the role of NTIA as
>> the Administrator will be replaced by mechanisms to be determined by you,
>> the global community, to ensure ICANN’s accountability to the community on
>> each request to update the root zone. ICANN will remain in its role as the
>> Operator, and will establish a relationship directly with the third-party
>> Maintainer.
>>
>>
>>
>> As a means to help ensure stability, ICANN’s recommended implementation
>> option is to have Verisign continue its role as the Maintainer. However, we
>> will be working closely with all relevant parties including the Root Zone
>> Operators to ensure there are contingency options in place to meet our
>> absolute commitment to the stability, security and resiliency of the Domain
>> Name System.
>>
>>
>>
>> *4. Strengthen bilateral relationships with policy bodies*
>>
>> ICANN staff has begun initial work to review and strengthen existing
>> informal and formal commitments between ICANN and the bodies that produce
>> the policies implemented by the IANA department. Let me be crystal clear –
>> the policies implemented by IANA are produced by the Internet Engineering
>> Task Force (for protocol parameters), the Address Supporting Organization
>> (for IP addresses), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (for generic
>> domain names) and the ccTLDs and Country-Code Names Supporting Organization
>> (for country-code domain names). We welcome your help in order to
>> strengthen these relationships and the assurances of a clear division
>> between the processes that produce the policies and their implementation.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can review existing commitments<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements>with policy bodies on the following page: ICANN’s
>> Major Agreements and Related Reports<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements>.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition, here are other links to major agreements and related
>> documents:
>>
>> · ccTLDs <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds>.
>>
>> · IAOC / IAB:
>>
>> o Original Memorandum of Understanding<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/ietf/ietf-icann-mou-01mar00-en.htm>,
>> dated 1 March 2000, RFC 2860.
>>
>> o Most recent MOU Supplemental Agreement<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/ietf/ietf-iana-agreement-2014-07mar13-en>,
>> effective 7 March 2014.
>>
>> · Number Resources Organization:
>>
>> o Memorandum of Understanding<http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm>,
>> dated 21 October 2004.
>>
>> o Exchange of Letters (NRO to ICANN-March 2009<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/akplogan-to-twomey-23mar09-en.pdf>;
>> ICANN to NRO-April 2009<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/twomey-to-akplogan-17apr09-en.pdf>;
>> NRO to ICANN-December 2007<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/plzak-to-twomey-17dec07-en.pdf>;
>> ICANN to NRO-December 2007<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/twomey-to-plzak-19dec07-en.pdf>
>> ).
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a full plate for the next 15 months. Together, we must carefully
>> manage these four concurrent and inter-related tracks. And while September
>> 2015 is not a deadline, we must organize ourselves on a clear timeline to
>> succeed. This is critical work – and I am confident that, united, we will
>> get it done.
>>
>>
>>
>> ##
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> soac-infoalert mailing list
>> [log in to unmask]
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert
>>
>>
>>
|
