Hi, Seems fair. avri On 06-May-15 14:27, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I will accept your bias Avri if you accept mine. :)
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:01 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
I think the Registries have a larger footprint on the proposed IFR Team than others.
Not what I generally favor, but seems to be the way we are heading on all CWG teams. Personally have real difficulties with all of the direct versus indirect customer bias.
avri
On 06-May-15 11:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I personally agree with Avri that the IFR is "a review group not a solution group". I think the solution options should be predefined as well as an escalation process for choosing solutions.
One term I am not comfortable with for IFR is 'minimalist' registry. Without disagreeing with the multi-stakeholder composition of the IFRT, I don't think the direct customers of the IANA services should ever be in a 'minimalist' position at least as I understand that term.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning.
In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities:
- one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered.
- one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution
I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ...
Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration.
But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned.
Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that.
Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic
avri
drive doc on separation process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDt F_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3gh M YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - --
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com