- NRO-Comments - nro-apps-2.ripe.net

Transition plan
by Hans Petter Holen 07 May '04

07 May '04

What are the plans to delvelop a tranition plan to the new ASO/NRO structure ? What are the plans, if any for public comments feedback to such a transition plan ? Perhaps it could be an idea to agree on the transition plan between the NRO and ICANN at the time of signing the NRO. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen

1 0

Your mail to nro-comments@nro.org
by Carsten Schiefner 07 May '04

07 May '04

Dear Ghazwa, your posting to <nro-comments(a)nro.org> was held for moderation as your are not a subscriber of this mailing list yet. We have approved your posting in the meantime. However, to fully particpate in the discussion and, in particular, to be able to read all the possible answers to the issue you raised, I would like to encourage you to subscribe to the list via the webform at: http://www.nro.org/mailman/listinfo/nro-comments Kind regards, Carsten Schiefner NRO Secretariat --- begin forwarded message --- From: "Ghazwa Malhas" <gmalhas(a)nic.gov.jo> To: <nro-comments(a)nro.org> Subject: NRO- ASO Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 12:21:29 +0200 My comment might be too naive, but the number of organizations that are = related to ICANN overwhelm me. Aren't we establishing more organizations = than we can handle or grasp? I suggest that the NRO can address the = suggested responsibilities of ASO without the addition of the new name! = We do not need more organizations. Pleease. Ghazwa Malhas National Information Technology Centre P.O.Box 259 Jubeiha 11941 Amman-JORDAN Tel: 00962 6 5337184 Fax: 00962 6 5337168 --- end forwarded message ---

1 1

Comments on the NRO MoU
by Mark McFadden 07 May '04

07 May '04

- the MoU should have a mechanism (and a requirement) for the Numbers Council to convene an annual General Assembly. The General Assembly should be held in coordination with one of the RIR's regular membership meeting. This should be added to the responsibilities in section 3.b of the MoU. - Section 3.b.3 should explicitly include the responsibility of the Address Council in respect to selecting an ICANN Board member and a representative to the ICANN Nominating Committee. - A short Appendix (Appendix B) should be added to the document that describes the agreement between ICANN and the NRO on how the transition between the existing Address Council and the new Address Council should take place. This need not be complicated, but it should be explicitly included in the MoU. Perhaps the Appendix could simply describe an approach that provided a common-sense, evolutionary transition for the makeup of the new Address Council. - The first paragraph of section 5 should be changed to the much simpler : "Global policies are defined as policies that have the consensus of all RIRs and ICANN." The concluding clause of the proposed text is too limiting in the definition of global policy. A policy that has been agreed to by all the RIRs through coordinated consensus building IS A GLOBAL POLICY regardless of the interaction of IANA or any external body. There is no need to limit the definition and it should not be limited. - Appendix A refers to the "Chair of the Address Council," but the MoU makes no requirement that the Address Council select a "Chair." This was also the source of misunderstanding in the original Address Council. Explicitly requiring that there be a chair, procedures for the chair's annual election, and responsibilities/limitations of the chair would avoid misunderstanding. While the NRO formation document suggests that a chair of the Number Council should be elected, it is not explicit about the responsibilities/limitations of the chair nor does it specify that the Numbers Council chair should act as the chair of the Address Council. - Section 3.C should be clear about what rights each liasions will have in regard to the Address Council. If the suggestion is that the rights and responsibilities of each liaison will be determined as each liaison agreement is negotiated, simply add that note to 3.C. In particular, can liaisons vote in the PDP? Can liaisons vote in the selection of ICANN entities in 3.b.3? Or, is this determined on a "liaison-by-liaison" basis. -- Mark McFadden Address Council Representative, North America

1 0

NRO- ASO
by Ghazwa Malhas 04 May '04

04 May '04

My comment might be too naive, but the number of organizations that are related to ICANN overwhelm me. Aren't we establishing more organizations than we can handle or grasp? I suggest that the NRO can address the suggested responsibilities of ASO without the addition of the new name! We do not need more organizations. Pleease. Ghazwa Malhas National Information Technology Centre P.O.Box 259 Jubeiha 11941 Amman-JORDAN Tel: 00962 6 5337184 Fax: 00962 6 5337168

1 0

More Explicit Process of Proposal Submission
by Bill Darte 07 Apr '04

07 Apr '04

To whom it may concern: Attachment A of the MOU states in item #1... "A proposed global policy can be submitted either to one of the RIR policy fora (via mail lists or public policy meeting) or to the ASO Address Council directly." Item #16, under Considerations states... "Through the provisions of an agreement to be executed between the RIRs and ICANN, it is recognized that the ICANN Board has the ability to request that the ASO Address Council initiate a policy development process through the RIRs, using the policy development procedure described above." So, these two paragraphs seem to indicate that if an entity other than ICANN itself wishes a global policy to be placed in consideration it MUST come to either a specific RIR policy forum or the ASO AC. In the event, a policy proposal is made to ICANN directly, in one fashion or another, is it the obligation of ICANN to redirect that initiative to the ASO AC, or may it refer that proposal as its own? I believe that any proposal intiative that comes to ICANN, by whatever means, should be redirected without consideration to the ASO AC or a specific RIR policy forum whose service region covers the requestor's interests. I think that this eventuality should be specifically addressed in the MOU and/or attachment. In this way, the industry is specifically directed to follow a bottom up process that encourages their involvement with their local community of interest. Bill Darte ARIN AC Washington University in St. Louis Center for the Application of Information Technology (CAIT) 314 935-7575

1 0

More Explicit Process of Proposal Submission
by Bill Darte 06 Apr '04

06 Apr '04

To whom it may concern: Attachment A of the MOU states in item #1... "A proposed global policy can be submitted either to one of the RIR policy fora (via mail lists or public policy meeting) or to the ASO Address Council directly." Item #16, under Considerations states... "Through the provisions of an agreement to be executed between the RIRs and ICANN, it is recognized that the ICANN Board has the ability to request that the ASO Address Council initiate a policy development process through the RIRs, using the policy development procedure described above." So, these two paragraphs seem to indicate that if an entity other than ICANN itself wishes a global policy to be placed in consideration it MUST come to either a specific RIR policy forum or the ASO AC. In the event, a policy proposal is made to ICANN directly, in one fashion or another, is it the obligation of ICANN to redirect that initiative to the ASO AC, or may it refer that proposal as its own? I believe that any proposal intiative that comes to ICANN, by whatever means, should be redirected without consideration to the ASO AC or a specific RIR policy forum whose service region covers the requestor's interests. I think that this eventuality should be specifically addressed in the MOU and/or attachment. In this way, the industry is specifically directed to follow a bottom up process that encourages their involvement with their local community of interest. Bill Darte ARIN AC Washington University in St. Louis Center for the Application of Information Technology (CAIT) 314 935-7575

2 1