Reminded me of  quote often repeated by an architect friend:

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left
to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."  Attributed to
Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On 09-Jan-15 13:32, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
Important re: too complex.

I read all the comments and from those talking about it being too complex came three things:

1. That there were too many interconnections between the four structures. The CSC recommends to the MRT that you may need the IAP and so on. Way too much unnecessary process.

2. That the structures as defined (or not defined) would create a whole other set of processes: how members were selected, what their charter and rules and methods would be, and so on. Far simpler, for example, would be to say: the IAP aspect will be filed by the ICC (as it already does ICANN-style arbitration); the CSC will be formed by the GNSO and ccNSO; the MRT will be created on the same lines as, say, the ATRT i.e. let's not create yet more new processes; stop reinventing the wheel.

3. That all the roles outlined weren't actually needed. The MRT doesn't need to be there all the time since 99.9 percent of IANA transactions simply happen without a fuss. You don't need a whole new CSC body because they are already largely organized in other places. That the IAP may not be necessary at all because various review and appeal mechanisms already exist.

So this is what people meant by "too complex" and I think this group should really consider those remarks. 

The ICANN community does have a tendency to over-engineer its policy processes and build new bodies for every new issue. I think the comments were saying: hold on there, take a step back and figure out whether all this is really needed in reality or if we're building policy castles in the sky.

Hope this is helpful.


Kieren



On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,

I have no problem seeing both of these as possibly be true simultaneously - I see no paradox.

One can argue that the set of entities Contract Co, Contract holder, CSC, IANA, IAP, MRT,  and the interconnections between them makes for a complex architecture. And if one beleives that it is more complex than necessary to fulfill the IANA transition requirements, then it may be said that it is too complex.

While also realizing that we have a ways to go, especially at the time the report was put out, defining the details of the entities and the nature of the communication and responsibility interfaces between those entities.

Complexity without enough detail.

avri


On 09-Jan-15 11:53, Donna Austin wrote:

Milton,

 

Based on our analysis, there were a significant number of comments that said the proposal was too complex and paradoxically the were also a significant number of comments that said the proposal lacked detail. We’re just reflecting what we read in the comments.

 

Thanks,

 

Donna

 

Description: Description: Description: ARI LogoDONNA AUSTIN
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

 

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne | Los Angeles
P  +1 310 890 9655
P  +61 3 9866 3710
E  donna.austin@ariservices.com
W  www.ariservices.com

 

Follow us on Twitter

 

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

 

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2015 12:40 AM
To: Kieren McCarthy; Donna Austin
Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG analysis of public comments

 

I think the RySG did a good job of summarizing the comments from their point of view, but I can’t agree with one of their conclusions as to what should guide future efforts: the proposal is “too complex.”

 

The statement that a proposal is “too complex” implies that one could develop a proposal that does the same things and has the same safeguards and is less complex.

 

My response to that is: show me.

 

We have already seen ALAC try and completely fail to deliver an alternative solution that is less complex.

 

The “too complex” charge strikes me as one of those things that one would say after one’s first confrontation with the proposal. It was my first reaction, too. It is very easy to say, it is a kind of superficial response. The real issue is, however: what proposal is less complex, and how would it work? Until we have real, complete alternate proposals on the table the characterization of one proposal as “complex” is not very meaningful.

 

If you think the status quo is not complex, you don’t understand what goes on in the current regime. The NTIA is embedded in the US government in a highly complex way; nothing simple about it.  

 

--MM

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 11:44 PM
To: Donna Austin
Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG analysis of public comments

 

For what it's worth, I think this is a useful and succinct summary. 

 

I'm not entirely sure why the ALAC proposal has been highlighted twice when no other submissions have been specifically mentioned and there were other proposals. But apart from that this seems like a good path forward to me.

 

Kieren


-
[sent through phone]

 

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote:

All

 

In the interests of sharing, a group of RySG members conducted our own analysis of the comments submitted on the CWG Transition Proposal. Provided below are our conclusions and recommendations for next steps. Also attached is a document we prepared containing key excerpts of comments as they relate to various aspects of the proposal.

 

Please accept this information in the spirit that it is offered—not as authoritative but as the result of an analysis developed by the RySG for our own purposes.

 

We (Chuck, Stephanie, Sarah and myself) will be happy to answer any questions.

 

RySG IANA CWG Team Conclusions regarding ongoing work of the IANA CWG

 

The RySG believes that the following statements have very strong support in the community and hence can be used to guide future decisions by the CWG:

A.      The current service of the IANA functions operator is satisfactory and ICANN should initially continue as the operator when the transition occurs.

B.      The IANA CWG proposal as described in the request for public comments is too complex and does not contain enough detail.

Of the four elements of the proposed IANA CWG proposal, there appears to be reasonable support for the CSC, MRT and IAP in some form, although not necessarily as described in the CWG proposal.

The RySG believes that the following statements need further investigation and/or indicate areas where additional work is warranted:

         i.            The overall structure of the CWG proposal.

       ii.            Contract Co.

      iii.            Internal to ICANN option

RySG IANA CWG Team Recommendations regarding Next Steps

1.       Suggestions made by commenters should be evaluated based on the following criteria to identify which ones should be excluded, which ones should definitely be considered further and which ones need further investigation:

a.       CWG principles

b.      Would they contribute toward a simpler proposal?

c.       Results of the two surveys.

 

2.       All alternatives to the CWG proposal should be examined in detail, not just the one proposed by the ALAC, to identify what alternatives or elements of the alternatives should be investigated further.

3.       An extension of the targeted time frame of at least 60 days should be requested from the ICG to allow for continued work and an additional public comment period after reasonable consensus is reached on a proposal for submission to the chartering SOs and ACs.

4.       The work of the IANA CWG and Accountability CCWG are properly dependent. The IANA CWG should have the opportunity to revisit the CWG Proposal, ALAC alternative, and other options once the outputs of Workstream 1 of the Accountability CCWG are provided and consider the implications for accountability as it relates to the performance of the IANA Functions.

Thanks,

 

Donna

 

<image002.png>

DONNA AUSTIN
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

 

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne | Los Angeles
P  +1 310 890 9655
P  +61 3 9866 3710
E  donna.austin@ariservices.com
W  www.ariservices.com

 

Follow us on Twitter

 

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2015 4:25 PM
To: Donna Austin; Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc
Importance: High

 

Thanks to all three of you for the good edits. The first attachment is a redline that includes a couple edits I made to the second paragraph and a comment I added on page 3 regarding the fact that the last two sections will be sent to the CWG list. Please let me know if you see any problems.  I also attached a clean copy.

 

The third document attached is a final version of our excerpts.  Note I added an introduction.

 

Donna – As our official rep, I think it would be good if you sent the documents as follows:

·         To the RySG & NTAG lists:

o   Clean version of the analysis

o   Excerpts document

·         To the CWG list:

o   The last two paragraphs of the analysis.

o   The excerpts document.

 

Can you do that?

 

Chuck

 

From: Donna Austin [mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 4:24 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc

 

I added the ‘internal to ICANN option’ as worthy of further consideration.

 

Thanks,

 

Donna

 

<image002.png>

DONNA AUSTIN
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

 

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne | Los Angeles
P  +1 310 890 9655
P  +61 3 9866 3710
E  donna.austin@ariservices.com
W  www.ariservices.com

 

Follow us on Twitter

 

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

 

From: rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2015 11:58 AM
To: Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc

 

Thanks to both of you.  I will hold off a couple hours before finalizing and distributing.

 

Chuck

 

From: rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Duchesneau, Stephanie
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:15 PM
To: 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc

 

Thanks Stacy. Took a stab at tweaking/shortening a bit. I changed the recommendation slightly to provide the opportunity to actually revisit the proposals once WS 1 outputs are published. Please advise if this is not what we want. Also added revisiting other alternatives.

 

Stephanie Duchesneau
Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040  Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz     

The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

 

From: rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 1:04 PM
To: rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com
Subject: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc

 

Okay….fairly wordy and it needs your edits, but here is my suggestion for basic language.

Thanks!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/595A876BF19C5C458A53C0D386E5414F1C8D2AF3%40ex10-mbx-31006.ant.amazon.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/EEBCBBF122EB65469AF478BFB0BDBDD8527522%40STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rysg-iana-transition-cwg@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E494C4275%40BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<IANA CWG Public Comments Key Excerpts from the RySG - 8 Jan 15.docx>

 



_______________________________________________
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