The flow looks fine to me as long as the regular IFRs occur no less frequently than every 5 years after the initial IFR. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 5:47 AM To: jrobinson@afilias.info; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC Johnathan, Greg, My understanding of what Avri and me are proposing (Avri may correct me), I think for this kind of thing laying it out visually can help understand it better: [cid:image001.jpg@01D0A295.F630BB40] -James -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 10:14 AM To: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC I am not sure Greg is saying exactly that. I understand his proposal to be that the IFR's remain on the same schedule regardless. Greg, please confirm? Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 08 June 2015 00:32 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC Hi, that was exactly what I proposed. SCWG -> reset IFR timer. cheers avri On 07-Jun-15 18:30, Greg Shatan wrote:
I think we are complicating things with the timing of reviews. It
will be more predictable to have the periodic reviews stay on
schedule, regardless of a SIFR. I would suggest that the next
periodic IFR (PIFR?) after a SIFR should specifically examine whether
the remediation that came out of the SIFR continued to work in a
satisfactory manner.
The only exception would be if a SIFR resulting in SCWG and ultimately
in a new IFO (replacing PTI). In this case, the new IFO should be
subject to a PIFR two years after commencing operations.
Greg
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 12:45 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net
<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
I would support the SCWG making a recommendation on it as the
landscape may change post an SCWG depending on the outcome. The
SCWG would be in the best position to make an informed fact based
decision at that time rather than us making it based on
hypotheticals now.
-James
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits
due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
Hi
Sorry for the confusion.
I was asking whether we consider resetting the IFR timer for post
SCWG.
We had the conversation about post SIFR and lots of arguments were
made both ways, with neither prevailing; so I left that issue alone.
The idea about doing it post SCWG, is that even if the SCWG were
to result in no-change, whatever would have been going on at the
time, would have been serious enough for the SCWG to have been
triggered. It therefore seems that this would be a good time to
rest the clock back to time 0 (i.e. this transition).
On the other hand, perhaps this decision could be left to the SCWG
to recommend, just as a SIFR or IFR could recommend a changed timing.
avri
On 07-Jun-15 11:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Avri,
>
> Regarding the clock for periodic IFRs related to SIFRs, let me
make sure I understand what you are suggesting. Am I correct that
you are suggesting that after an SIFR the entire clock would be
reset so that the next periodic IFR would occur two years later
and then the (no more than) 5 year periodic review cycle would
kick in again? If so, then the only concern I have is a situation
illustration by this possible scenario:
> - The initial 2-year periodic review happens.
> - A SIFR occurs 4 years after the initial 2-year periodic
review.
> - A new 2-year periodic review happens 2 years after the SIFR.
> In this case there would be six years or more between periodic
reviews, which would violate our intent that periodic reviews
occur no less frequently than five years.
>
> Because periodic review cover items different than in SIFRs, I
think we should fix this, assuming I am understanding your
recommendation correctly, and I think it should be easily fixable
with some adjustments to wording. Would a qualifier, like the
following work: "In case an SIFR occurs close to the end of a
5-year period after the last periodic review, the periodic review
should still occur and a 2-year periodic review should occur after
the 5-year periodic review."
>
> I am not sure my qualifying language is the best but I at least
wanted to try to suggest something.
>
> Hope this makes sense but if it doesn't please let me know.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM
> To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits
due on
> Sunday at 23:59 UTC
>
> Hi,
>
> On a partial reread, I have the following comments.
> I do agree with Grace's comment that we are almost there.
>
> On 05-Jun-15 00:07, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes the edits
>> listed below. *Your comments are requested and welcome until Sunday
>> 23:59 UTC.* If you don't have time to read the whole proposal, I've
>> highlighted specific areas in the document that require feedback.
>> * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of
>> footnote
>>
> - i do not understand footnote 51 in the context of the current
report. It is a vestige of a time before we discussed the IFR in
detail. I think it should be removed.
>
>> * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?)
>>
> seems fine to me.
>
>
>
> --- Does Annex H need to change based on changes made in para 133
>
> --- An issue we discussed but not sure we closed on.
>
> IFR Clock reset after any SCWG. (and understanding that we
could not
> come to consensus of changing the periodicity after an SIFR)
>
> I think we need to reset the clock after any SCWG, no matter what
> outcome it may select. If something was important enough to warrant
> an SCWG, its outcome needs to be reviewed 2 years later - even
in case
> of a decision of no change)
>
> this would require changing: 299 top row 2nd col.
>
>> Initially, two years, then moving to every five years
>>
> to
>
> Initially and after an SCWG, two years, then moving to an
interval of
> no more than five years
>
> (the second bit for consistency with other word in the doc)
>
> It might also require insertion of something like the following
after
> 126 & 385
>
> # After the completion of a SCWG process, the IFR periodic clock
will be reset to its initial state of first IFR after 2 years
followed by a period of no more that five years for subsequent IFR.
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
