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 >> >> >>