Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
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 don¹t have time to read the whole proposal, I¹ve highlighted specific areas in the document that require feedback. Areas that require feedback: * Paragraph 164 (p.32): needs text * Paragraph 172 (p.34): DT-F to confirm edit * Section IV edits should be reviewed by CWG (Andrew perhaps?) * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?) * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of footnote * Page 73: DT-C to confirm response to Sidley comment * Page 80: DT-M to review footnote * Page 81: DT-M/DT-C to comment on Sidley note * Paragraph 389 (p.92): DT-N/SR/X to define ³Review Team Liaison² per Sidley¹s comment * Page 111 & 112: Bernard to address Sidley comments Edits included in version 3: * All the comments & edits from Greg, Avri, Sidley, Lise and Andrew. * The following items from today¹s call: > * Paragraph 123 has been reviewed to be internally consistent > * Paragraph 141: adjusted text around CCWG-Accountability structure > * Paragraph 167: removed sentence > * Paragraph 170: Removed the word ³multistakholder" and use 'customer-based' > instead) > * Added footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is also in Annex to > section II) > * Paragraph 275: fixed composition of IFRT (and also fixed this in SCWG > composition) > * Annex S: Added disclaimer about term sheet * DT C Charter updates (see Section III and Annex G) * Section IV edits * Section VI edits As you know, we had a technical glitch with document versions right before the call yesterday. In recovering the version, there were a lot of formatting changes that had to be done. I have attached version 2.5 (the in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday. We are almost there! Grace
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 04:07:05AM +0000, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Attached is the updated proposal. […] in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday.
Just to be clear, however, there won't be another version between now and Monday, right? So we can treat this as the only version we need to look at? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Here's hoping that Andrew is right. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 9:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 04:07:05AM +0000, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Attached is the updated proposal. […] in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday.
Just to be clear, however, there won't be another version between now and Monday, right? So we can treat this as the only version we need to look at? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Yes, that is correct Andrew and Chuck. There will be no other version until Monday. On Monday, we will include all the new edits and accept all the changes that people haven't commented or objected to. The Monday version will only contain new or unresolved items to discuss on the Tuesday call. Does that help? Best, Grace On 6/5/15, 9:42 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Here's hoping that Andrew is right.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 9:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 04:07:05AM +0000, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Attached is the updated proposal. [] in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday.
Just to be clear, however, there won't be another version between now and Monday, right? So we can treat this as the only version we need to look at?
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.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
Sounds good to me. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:11 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC Yes, that is correct Andrew and Chuck. There will be no other version until Monday. On Monday, we will include all the new edits and accept all the changes that people haven't commented or objected to. The Monday version will only contain new or unresolved items to discuss on the Tuesday call. Does that help? Best, Grace On 6/5/15, 9:42 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Here's hoping that Andrew is right.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 9:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 04:07:05AM +0000, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Attached is the updated proposal. [Š] in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday.
Just to be clear, however, there won't be another version between now and Monday, right? So we can treat this as the only version we need to look at?
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.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
My input on Proposal v.3 is highlighted in the attached file. Note in all cases where I suggested edits I also entered a comment except in one footnote where I made a very minor edit and Word wouldn't let me insert a comment. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC 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. Areas that require feedback: * Paragraph 164 (p.32): needs text * Paragraph 172 (p.34): DT-F to confirm edit * Section IV edits should be reviewed by CWG (Andrew perhaps?) * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?) * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of footnote * Page 73: DT-C to confirm response to Sidley comment * Page 80: DT-M to review footnote * Page 81: DT-M/DT-C to comment on Sidley note * Paragraph 389 (p.92): DT-N/SR/X to define "Review Team Liaison" per Sidley's comment * Page 111 & 112: Bernard to address Sidley comments Edits included in version 3: * All the comments & edits from Greg, Avri, Sidley, Lise and Andrew. * The following items from today's call: * Paragraph 123 has been reviewed to be internally consistent * Paragraph 141: adjusted text around CCWG-Accountability structure * Paragraph 167: removed sentence * Paragraph 170: Removed the word "multistakholder" and use 'customer-based' instead) * Added footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is also in Annex to section II) * Paragraph 275: fixed composition of IFRT (and also fixed this in SCWG composition) * Annex S: Added disclaimer about term sheet * DT C Charter updates (see Section III and Annex G) * Section IV edits * Section VI edits As you know, we had a technical glitch with document versions right before the call yesterday. In recovering the version, there were a lot of formatting changes that had to be done. I have attached version 2.5 (the in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday. We are almost there! Grace
I forgot to say that the document is looking very good. Sincere compliments and thanks are due to the staff team. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:15 PM To: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC My input on Proposal v.3 is highlighted in the attached file. Note in all cases where I suggested edits I also entered a comment except in one footnote where I made a very minor edit and Word wouldn't let me insert a comment. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC 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. Areas that require feedback: * Paragraph 164 (p.32): needs text * Paragraph 172 (p.34): DT-F to confirm edit * Section IV edits should be reviewed by CWG (Andrew perhaps?) * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?) * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of footnote * Page 73: DT-C to confirm response to Sidley comment * Page 80: DT-M to review footnote * Page 81: DT-M/DT-C to comment on Sidley note * Paragraph 389 (p.92): DT-N/SR/X to define "Review Team Liaison" per Sidley's comment * Page 111 & 112: Bernard to address Sidley comments Edits included in version 3: * All the comments & edits from Greg, Avri, Sidley, Lise and Andrew. * The following items from today's call: * Paragraph 123 has been reviewed to be internally consistent * Paragraph 141: adjusted text around CCWG-Accountability structure * Paragraph 167: removed sentence * Paragraph 170: Removed the word "multistakholder" and use 'customer-based' instead) * Added footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is also in Annex to section II) * Paragraph 275: fixed composition of IFRT (and also fixed this in SCWG composition) * Annex S: Added disclaimer about term sheet * DT C Charter updates (see Section III and Annex G) * Section IV edits * Section VI edits As you know, we had a technical glitch with document versions right before the call yesterday. In recovering the version, there were a lot of formatting changes that had to be done. I have attached version 2.5 (the in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday. We are almost there! Grace
I chose to layer my edits onto Chuck's redline. That way, staff have a single document that contains both. I trust that this is helpful. Thank you to everyone for hard work and a comprehensive proposal which has emerged. Jonathan From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 06 June 2015 01:15 To: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC My input on Proposal v.3 is highlighted in the attached file. Note in all cases where I suggested edits I also entered a comment except in one footnote where I made a very minor edit and Word wouldn't let me insert a comment. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC 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. Areas that require feedback: * Paragraph 164 (p.32): needs text * Paragraph 172 (p.34): DT-F to confirm edit * Section IV edits should be reviewed by CWG (Andrew perhaps?) * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?) * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of footnote * Page 73: DT-C to confirm response to Sidley comment * Page 80: DT-M to review footnote * Page 81: DT-M/DT-C to comment on Sidley note * Paragraph 389 (p.92): DT-N/SR/X to define "Review Team Liaison" per Sidley's comment * Page 111 & 112: Bernard to address Sidley comments Edits included in version 3: * All the comments & edits from Greg, Avri, Sidley, Lise and Andrew. * The following items from today's call: * Paragraph 123 has been reviewed to be internally consistent * Paragraph 141: adjusted text around CCWG-Accountability structure * Paragraph 167: removed sentence * Paragraph 170: Removed the word "multistakholder" and use 'customer-based' instead) * Added footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is also in Annex to section II) * Paragraph 275: fixed composition of IFRT (and also fixed this in SCWG composition) * Annex S: Added disclaimer about term sheet * DT C Charter updates (see Section III and Annex G) * Section IV edits * Section VI edits As you know, we had a technical glitch with document versions right before the call yesterday. In recovering the version, there were a lot of formatting changes that had to be done. I have attached version 2.5 (the in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday. We are almost there! Grace
I support many of the edits/changes that Jonathan proposed, but would highlight in particular this one: · Paragraph 112 (PTI board) replace the word "could" with "must" Also, in same paragraph delete the phrase "(who may or may not be members of the ICANN Board)". As noted during the phone conversations, some of us do not consider ICANN board members to be independent enough, but others may not agree. So I suggest not mentioning it specifically. Para 116: Chuck notes that something is missing or awkward about this phrase in the changing relationship post-IANA Stewardship Transition · ...it should be "the changing relationship between IANA and ICANN." Referring to comments by Andrew Sullivan I agree that the removal of the word "naming" from ¶406 (Annex L) would be a mistake. Although we want all the current IANA functions, resources and staff to be transferred to PTI, the separation process described in Annex L would ONLY apply to the naming related functions. In that vein, I would have real trouble with Martin's suggestion that in Paragraph 108 that "it [would] be easier to grant the PTI rights to use while keeping these under the rights of ICANN?" This undermines the whole PTI model, which was to create a separate corporate affiliate, not a mere "right to use" relationship. I don't think we should be fiddling with fundamental elements of the model at this point. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 5:58 PM To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Grace Abuhamad'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC I chose to layer my edits onto Chuck's redline. That way, staff have a single document that contains both. I trust that this is helpful. Thank you to everyone for hard work and a comprehensive proposal which has emerged. Jonathan From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 06 June 2015 01:15 To: Grace Abuhamad; 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 My input on Proposal v.3 is highlighted in the attached file. Note in all cases where I suggested edits I also entered a comment except in one footnote where I made a very minor edit and Word wouldn't let me insert a comment. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC 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. Areas that require feedback: * Paragraph 164 (p.32): needs text * Paragraph 172 (p.34): DT-F to confirm edit * Section IV edits should be reviewed by CWG (Andrew perhaps?) * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?) * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of footnote * Page 73: DT-C to confirm response to Sidley comment * Page 80: DT-M to review footnote * Page 81: DT-M/DT-C to comment on Sidley note * Paragraph 389 (p.92): DT-N/SR/X to define "Review Team Liaison" per Sidley's comment * Page 111 & 112: Bernard to address Sidley comments Edits included in version 3: * All the comments & edits from Greg, Avri, Sidley, Lise and Andrew. * The following items from today's call: * Paragraph 123 has been reviewed to be internally consistent * Paragraph 141: adjusted text around CCWG-Accountability structure * Paragraph 167: removed sentence * Paragraph 170: Removed the word "multistakholder" and use 'customer-based' instead) * Added footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is also in Annex to section II) * Paragraph 275: fixed composition of IFRT (and also fixed this in SCWG composition) * Annex S: Added disclaimer about term sheet * DT C Charter updates (see Section III and Annex G) * Section IV edits * Section VI edits As you know, we had a technical glitch with document versions right before the call yesterday. In recovering the version, there were a lot of formatting changes that had to be done. I have attached version 2.5 (the in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday. We are almost there! Grace
Milton, I'm not sure I see how granting the IANA functions operator rights while they carry out the contract undermines the model. They are a corporate affiliate with the right to use. When (if) they are deemed to be unsatisfactory and need to be replaced, adding the extra hurdle of recovering the various rights (the registries, processes, data & know-how, which should include stuff that they have developed during their tenure as PTI) for transfer to the new IANA functions operator. MB From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 08 June 2015 16:28 To: 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Grace Abuhamad'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC I support many of the edits/changes that Jonathan proposed, but would highlight in particular this one: * Paragraph 112 (PTI board) replace the word "could" with "must" Also, in same paragraph delete the phrase "(who may or may not be members of the ICANN Board)". As noted during the phone conversations, some of us do not consider ICANN board members to be independent enough, but others may not agree. So I suggest not mentioning it specifically. Para 116: Chuck notes that something is missing or awkward about this phrase in the changing relationship post-IANA Stewardship Transition * ...it should be "the changing relationship between IANA and ICANN." Referring to comments by Andrew Sullivan I agree that the removal of the word "naming" from ¶406 (Annex L) would be a mistake. Although we want all the current IANA functions, resources and staff to be transferred to PTI, the separation process described in Annex L would ONLY apply to the naming related functions. In that vein, I would have real trouble with Martin's suggestion that in Paragraph 108 that "it [would] be easier to grant the PTI rights to use while keeping these under the rights of ICANN?" This undermines the whole PTI model, which was to create a separate corporate affiliate, not a mere "right to use" relationship. I don't think we should be fiddling with fundamental elements of the model at this point. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 5:58 PM To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Grace Abuhamad'; 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 I chose to layer my edits onto Chuck's redline. That way, staff have a single document that contains both. I trust that this is helpful. Thank you to everyone for hard work and a comprehensive proposal which has emerged. Jonathan From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 06 June 2015 01:15 To: Grace Abuhamad; 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 My input on Proposal v.3 is highlighted in the attached file. Note in all cases where I suggested edits I also entered a comment except in one footnote where I made a very minor edit and Word wouldn't let me insert a comment. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC 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. Areas that require feedback: * Paragraph 164 (p.32): needs text * Paragraph 172 (p.34): DT-F to confirm edit * Section IV edits should be reviewed by CWG (Andrew perhaps?) * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?) * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of footnote * Page 73: DT-C to confirm response to Sidley comment * Page 80: DT-M to review footnote * Page 81: DT-M/DT-C to comment on Sidley note * Paragraph 389 (p.92): DT-N/SR/X to define "Review Team Liaison" per Sidley's comment * Page 111 & 112: Bernard to address Sidley comments Edits included in version 3: * All the comments & edits from Greg, Avri, Sidley, Lise and Andrew. * The following items from today's call: * Paragraph 123 has been reviewed to be internally consistent * Paragraph 141: adjusted text around CCWG-Accountability structure * Paragraph 167: removed sentence * Paragraph 170: Removed the word "multistakholder" and use 'customer-based' instead) * Added footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is also in Annex to section II) * Paragraph 275: fixed composition of IFRT (and also fixed this in SCWG composition) * Annex S: Added disclaimer about term sheet * DT C Charter updates (see Section III and Annex G) * Section IV edits * Section VI edits As you know, we had a technical glitch with document versions right before the call yesterday. In recovering the version, there were a lot of formatting changes that had to be done. I have attached version 2.5 (the in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday. We are almost there! Grace
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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM To: 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM To: 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM To: 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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> 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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM To: 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM > To: 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. > 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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM > To: 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. > 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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I agree with Greg - when he confirms ..:) Elise -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Jonathan Robinson Sendt: 8. juni 2015 11:14 Til: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: 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 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM > To: 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. > 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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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
That is - I thought we agreed on the last call that we shouldn't let the two processes interfere with each other at this stage. The Special IFR and the periodic IFR are different in mandate. In my mind we decided that the best option was to keep them separated for now - but be careful with language so that we didn't stop any practical solution for the cases where a SIFR occurs just before PIFR. Elise -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Lindeberg, Elise Sendt: 8. juni 2015 11:47 Til: jrobinson@afilias.info; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC I agree with Greg - when he confirms ..:) Elise -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Jonathan Robinson Sendt: 8. juni 2015 11:14 Til: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: 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 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM > To: 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. > 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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Yes unless the SIFR and/or the SCWG specifically recommends resetting the IFR timer, it continues to count down as normal would be the most practical solution. -James -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lindeberg, Elise Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 11:03 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 That is - I thought we agreed on the last call that we shouldn't let the two processes interfere with each other at this stage. The Special IFR and the periodic IFR are different in mandate. In my mind we decided that the best option was to keep them separated for now - but be careful with language so that we didn't stop any practical solution for the cases where a SIFR occurs just before PIFR. Elise -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Lindeberg, Elise Sendt: 8. juni 2015 11:47 Til: jrobinson@afilias.info; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC I agree with Greg - when he confirms ..:) Elise -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Jonathan Robinson Sendt: 8. juni 2015 11:14 Til: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: 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 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM > To: 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. > 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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
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:image002.jpg@01D0A1D8.814CDB50] -James -----Original Message----- From: 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; 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
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
On 08-Jun-15 05:14, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
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.
I think he says neither what i thought nor what I think you are saying:
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.
(I assume he means a IFR) In any case. while I think that resetting the timer to Time 0 after any SCWG is the right thing to do, it is not all that important. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I am okay with keeping the IFRs on the same schedule regardless but that creates the possibility that we could have a regular IFR and SIFR occurring at the same time or very close to one another so resourcing issues would have to be dealt with. Maybe we should deal with resourcing issues if and when they occur and not worry about it now. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 5:14 AM To: avri@acm.org; 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 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM > To: 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. > 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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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
I believe that the current / latest draft deals with this in having the no less frequent than 5 years for the IFRs (regardless) and accommodating the SIFR. Whilst also recognising that there may need to be some flexibility in the event that the IFR and the SIFR coincide or overlap. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 09 June 2015 14:27 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 I am okay with keeping the IFRs on the same schedule regardless but that creates the possibility that we could have a regular IFR and SIFR occurring at the same time or very close to one another so resourcing issues would have to be dealt with. Maybe we should deal with resourcing issues if and when they occur and not worry about it now. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 5:14 AM To: avri@acm.org; 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 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM > To: 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. > 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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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
That covers my issues. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC I believe that the current / latest draft deals with this in having the no less frequent than 5 years for the IFRs (regardless) and accommodating the SIFR. Whilst also recognising that there may need to be some flexibility in the event that the IFR and the SIFR coincide or overlap. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 09 June 2015 14:27 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 I am okay with keeping the IFRs on the same schedule regardless but that creates the possibility that we could have a regular IFR and SIFR occurring at the same time or very close to one another so resourcing issues would have to be dealt with. Maybe we should deal with resourcing issues if and when they occur and not worry about it now. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 5:14 AM To: avri@acm.org; 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 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM > To: 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. > 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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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
I definitely think we should keep it as simple as possible and maybe having the SCWG make recommendations as to any clock resetting is one way to keep it simpler. I definitely don't think that periodic reviews should ever happen less frequently than every five years. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:32 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM > To: 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. > 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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
My suggestion is that the periodic IFRs should stay on the same schedule (like Olympics or World Cups or Presidential elections) regardless of any SIFRs. So, if the transition takes places in 2015, the first (2 year) IFR would take place in 2017, and then every 5 years thereafter (in this example, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, etc.), unless a new IFO is put in place, replacing PTI. In this case, the clock should reset, so that there is a 2 year IFR, followed by successive 5 year IFRs (as above). *Follow-up Reviews: *SIFRs are different than PIFRs because they are triggered by a material deficiency, and they are aimed at resolving that deficiency. Therefore, I suggest that after a SIFR (or a SCWG that does not result in a new IFO), a targeted follow-up should take place to determine whether the deficiency was in fact satisfactorily resolved. A full PIFR is not the right tool to do so, and should not be accelerated to serve as such. I would suggest that this Follow-up Review should take place 1 year after the end of the SIFR or SCWG process. Greg On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I definitely think we should keep it as simple as possible and maybe having the SCWG make recommendations as to any clock resetting is one way to keep it simpler. I definitely don't think that periodic reviews should ever happen less frequently than every five years.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:32 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM > To: 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. > 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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Greg - I think this makes sense. On the Follow-up Reviews, I agree that the PIFR should not be accelerated to do it, but why wouldn't IFR still undertake the review? I don't think we should be creating a new body to do so. On 6/8/2015 10:42 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
My suggestion is that the periodic IFRs should stay on the same schedule (like Olympics or World Cups or Presidential elections) regardless of any SIFRs. So, if the transition takes places in 2015, the first (2 year) IFR would take place in 2017, and then every 5 years thereafter (in this example, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, etc.), unless a new IFO is put in place, replacing PTI. In this case, the clock should reset, so that there is a 2 year IFR, followed by successive 5 year IFRs (as above).
*Follow-up Reviews: *SIFRs are different than PIFRs because they are triggered by a material deficiency, and they are aimed at resolving that deficiency. Therefore, I suggest that after a SIFR (or a SCWG that does not result in a new IFO), a targeted follow-up should take place to determine whether the deficiency was in fact satisfactorily resolved. A full PIFR is not the right tool to do so, and should not be accelerated to serve as such. I would suggest that this Follow-up Review should take place 1 year after the end of the SIFR or SCWG process.
Greg
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
I definitely think we should keep it as simple as possible and maybe having the SCWG make recommendations as to any clock resetting is one way to keep it simpler. I definitely don't think that periodic reviews should ever happen less frequently than every five years.
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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:32 PM 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> > <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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. > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > --- > 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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
Hi, I agree that we should not be creating yet another mechanism and wheher we reset timers of not, we do not create something new to handle a post SCWG review. To Chuck's point, if we leave the periodicity of reviews post a SCWG to the SCWG, they could decide that 5 years is much too frequent. I am fine with leaving the future open to the future on issue of timer duration if others are. In recommending a return to Transition rules, I hoped I was recommending something simple that required few extra words in the proposal. Just as I believe we should not be adding new mechanisms, I also believe that we should not be adding a lot of complicating text at this point. avri On 08-Jun-15 10:53, Matthew Shears wrote:
Thanks Greg - I think this makes sense. On the Follow-up Reviews, I agree that the PIFR should not be accelerated to do it, but why wouldn't IFR still undertake the review? I don't think we should be creating a new body to do so.
On 6/8/2015 10:42 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
My suggestion is that the periodic IFRs should stay on the same schedule (like Olympics or World Cups or Presidential elections) regardless of any SIFRs. So, if the transition takes places in 2015, the first (2 year) IFR would take place in 2017, and then every 5 years thereafter (in this example, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, etc.), unless a new IFO is put in place, replacing PTI. In this case, the clock should reset, so that there is a 2 year IFR, followed by successive 5 year IFRs (as above).
*Follow-up Reviews: *SIFRs are different than PIFRs because they are triggered by a material deficiency, and they are aimed at resolving that deficiency. Therefore, I suggest that after a SIFR (or a SCWG that does not result in a new IFO), a targeted follow-up should take place to determine whether the deficiency was in fact satisfactorily resolved. A full PIFR is not the right tool to do so, and should not be accelerated to serve as such. I would suggest that this Follow-up Review should take place 1 year after the end of the SIFR or SCWG process.
Greg
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
I definitely think we should keep it as simple as possible and maybe having the SCWG make recommendations as to any clock resetting is one way to keep it simpler. I definitely don't think that periodic reviews should ever happen less frequently than every five years.
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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:32 PM 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> > <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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. > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > --- > 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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Avri, I think the SCWG should not have absolute discretion to recommend a timeframe. They would still have to abide by the "no less than every 5 years" rule. Within the confines of the rule, they could have discretion to recommend a timeframe for the next PIFR. However, I still think it's overkill to accelerate a comprehensive PIFR instead of conducting a focused follow-up review of the remediation. Greg On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I agree that we should not be creating yet another mechanism and wheher we reset timers of not, we do not create something new to handle a post SCWG review.
To Chuck's point, if we leave the periodicity of reviews post a SCWG to the SCWG, they could decide that 5 years is much too frequent. I am fine with leaving the future open to the future on issue of timer duration if others are.
In recommending a return to Transition rules, I hoped I was recommending something simple that required few extra words in the proposal. Just as I believe we should not be adding new mechanisms, I also believe that we should not be adding a lot of complicating text at this point.
avri
On 08-Jun-15 10:53, Matthew Shears wrote:
Thanks Greg - I think this makes sense. On the Follow-up Reviews, I agree that the PIFR should not be accelerated to do it, but why wouldn't IFR still undertake the review? I don't think we should be creating a new body to do so.
On 6/8/2015 10:42 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
My suggestion is that the periodic IFRs should stay on the same schedule (like Olympics or World Cups or Presidential elections) regardless of any SIFRs. So, if the transition takes places in 2015, the first (2 year) IFR would take place in 2017, and then every 5 years thereafter (in this example, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, etc.), unless a new IFO is put in place, replacing PTI. In this case, the clock should reset, so that there is a 2 year IFR, followed by successive 5 year IFRs (as above).
*Follow-up Reviews: *SIFRs are different than PIFRs because they are triggered by a material deficiency, and they are aimed at resolving that deficiency. Therefore, I suggest that after a SIFR (or a SCWG that does not result in a new IFO), a targeted follow-up should take place to determine whether the deficiency was in fact satisfactorily resolved. A full PIFR is not the right tool to do so, and should not be accelerated to serve as such. I would suggest that this Follow-up Review should take place 1 year after the end of the SIFR or SCWG process.
Greg
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
I definitely think we should keep it as simple as possible and maybe having the SCWG make recommendations as to any clock resetting is one way to keep it simpler. I definitely don't think that periodic reviews should ever happen less frequently than every five years.
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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:32 PM 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> > <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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. > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > --- > 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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Matthew, The IFRTs are not standing bodies, so we would need to either convene a team for the purpose of the Follow-Up Review (F/UR). I would suggest modeling the follow-up review team (F/URT) on the GNSO's Implementation Review Team concept, i.e., a hold-over team from the SIFRT should conduct the F/UR. The F/URT could be the whole SIFRT or a subgroup. We don't need a new body, much less a new mechanism. Such a hold-over team would be better qualified to conduct a F/UR than a new team. The alternative is to wait for the next PIFR, which could be too long -- you want a specific check-up to make sure the remediation happened and is working. If the PIFR and F/UR would overlap in time, one could fold the F/UR responsibility into the PIFR -- no need to have a F/UR and a PIFR running simultaneously. Greg On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Thanks Greg - I think this makes sense. On the Follow-up Reviews, I agree that the PIFR should not be accelerated to do it, but why wouldn't IFR still undertake the review? I don't think we should be creating a new body to do so.
On 6/8/2015 10:42 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
My suggestion is that the periodic IFRs should stay on the same schedule (like Olympics or World Cups or Presidential elections) regardless of any SIFRs. So, if the transition takes places in 2015, the first (2 year) IFR would take place in 2017, and then every 5 years thereafter (in this example, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, etc.), unless a new IFO is put in place, replacing PTI. In this case, the clock should reset, so that there is a 2 year IFR, followed by successive 5 year IFRs (as above).
*Follow-up Reviews: *SIFRs are different than PIFRs because they are triggered by a material deficiency, and they are aimed at resolving that deficiency. Therefore, I suggest that after a SIFR (or a SCWG that does not result in a new IFO), a targeted follow-up should take place to determine whether the deficiency was in fact satisfactorily resolved. A full PIFR is not the right tool to do so, and should not be accelerated to serve as such. I would suggest that this Follow-up Review should take place 1 year after the end of the SIFR or SCWG process.
Greg
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I definitely think we should keep it as simple as possible and maybe having the SCWG make recommendations as to any clock resetting is one way to keep it simpler. I definitely don't think that periodic reviews should ever happen less frequently than every five years.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:32 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM > To: 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. > 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
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
All: I have attached my comments to Annex S (the Term Sheet) of Transition Proposal v3. Greg On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> 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> 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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM To: 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Greg, Under the IFR section of the table in Annex S you delete the wording, “[A special review may also be initiated by the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) or Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) in the event that the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) or Top-Level Domains (TLDs) raise concerns sufficient to trigger such review.]” and replace it with “[A special review may also be initiated by the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) in the event that a deficiency identified by the CSC is not remediated after all required escalations, subject to approval by the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) and the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) pursuant to a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO Council and the GNSO Council.]” I’m not sure that that was what we agreed – we argued (and I thought it was accepted) that the CSC shouldn’t initiate a review, but that the decision was to be made by the ccNSO and the GNSO. In other words the CSC flags the issue, but it is the cc & GNSO that makes the decision to initiate the special review. I certainly prefer the original text in that it is clear that initiating the review is a decision belonging to the cc and (or?) the GNSO, which is reasonable given the serious nature of the review process. I have one suggestion, though – the original text calls for ccNSO or GNSO. Reading one of Chucks comments he notes that one of the two might have a strong reason to call for a review whereas the other is not involved. I thought that this was an important point. For the original wording could we amend it to read, “A special review may also be initiated by the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) or Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) subject to no opposition from the other NSO in the event that…” Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: 07 June 2015 23:31 To: James Gannon Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM To: 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. 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
--- 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 ________________________________
To which I would also add that the text in Escalation Mechanisms you comment on (GS64) is not intended to say that the ccNSO and/or GNSO act as bodies to solve problems of performance (although I think due diligence on their behalf would be to discuss the issues with PTI and ICANN Boards) – the further action they might take is to launch a special IFR. They also might have agreed further action when they did due diligence or they might think that the call lacked consensus or was more to do with personalities or even that the call was outside the CSC’s mandate. From: Martin Boyle Sent: 08 June 2015 14:14 To: 'Greg Shatan'; James Gannon Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC Greg, Under the IFR section of the table in Annex S you delete the wording, “[A special review may also be initiated by the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) or Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) in the event that the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) or Top-Level Domains (TLDs) raise concerns sufficient to trigger such review.]” and replace it with “[A special review may also be initiated by the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) in the event that a deficiency identified by the CSC is not remediated after all required escalations, subject to approval by the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) and the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) pursuant to a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO Council and the GNSO Council.]” I’m not sure that that was what we agreed – we argued (and I thought it was accepted) that the CSC shouldn’t initiate a review, but that the decision was to be made by the ccNSO and the GNSO. In other words the CSC flags the issue, but it is the cc & GNSO that makes the decision to initiate the special review. I certainly prefer the original text in that it is clear that initiating the review is a decision belonging to the cc and (or?) the GNSO, which is reasonable given the serious nature of the review process. I have one suggestion, though – the original text calls for ccNSO or GNSO. Reading one of Chucks comments he notes that one of the two might have a strong reason to call for a review whereas the other is not involved. I thought that this was an important point. For the original wording could we amend it to read, “A special review may also be initiated by the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) or Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) subject to no opposition from the other NSO in the event that…” Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: 07 June 2015 23:31 To: James Gannon Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; 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 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM To: 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. 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
--- 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
Greg, Your comment on Changes to Key Personnel in Annex S worries me. I really do not like the concept of the CSC having a gatekeeper role in hiring and firing decisions of the company. It seems to give too much power (without responsibility) to the CSC and I certainly cannot think of any circumstance where it would be a good safeguard. This seems to me to be an expansion of the role of the CSC that DT-C certainly did not discuss. Having the role in ICANN as steward seems to me to be fine. If there are concerns in the CSC, the CSC could, of course, raise their concerns (with the PTI Board, the ICANN Board or via the NSOs. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: 07 June 2015 23:31 To: James Gannon Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM To: 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>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM To: 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. 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
--- 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
Hi, On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 04:07:05AM +0000, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes the edits listed below. Your comments are requested and welcome until Sunday 23:59 UTC.
I've read the last version. Thanks to the staff and all the contributors for all the work. I think this is pretty close to ready to ship. I have a few little comments. They're below. I should note that I've been reading given what I take to be the views of the CWG (so there may well be parts of the document that I don't agree with, but that I nevertheless think should be in the document because I think it reflects the view of the group. I remain somewhat worried about a tendency to try to do too much, and a little nervous about what PTI means for the overall IANA system, but I think we've already explored that pretty well). I am (pleasantly) surprised at the inclusion of my suggested text about SLEs at ¶133. I expect this is controversial given the discussion on the list (my impression is that many more people would like to make the changes immediately). I didn't see any responses to that suggestion on the list, so I want to make sure people are ok with it. As I've argued before, I think this is the most prudent approach, and I think giving 6 months gets us the improvements in a timely way while yet reducing the number of things that have to get done at the time of transition. Given ¶133, ¶199's "Service Levels" bullet could be altered slightly to say, "Because the current recommendation is to maintain the existing SLAs as SLEs at the time of transition, there is no time necessary to implement this. The proposal requires new SLEs at the end of six months, and it is anticipated that the work for implementation should be included in staff time estimates over that period. More generally on this section, the comment I sent last week still seems to me to be true: a few of these tasks are pretty close to things that either ICANN or others have already done, and it'd be really good to get some concrete estimates of how long tasks will take. That's what the ICG asked for. (If I actually knew how to make those estimates, I would offer text. But I think these things are mostly outside my own experience.) On the diagram in Annex D, there are three customers of PTI. This is a little unfortunate, since three is sort of a magic number in this discussion and it is not at all clear that the other communities are going to deal directly with PTI. This could be easily solved by changing the number of customers to some number other than three (I suggest four, so that it's clear). I do note that every other collection of people on the diagram is also three, so I suspect this is just a standard design trope. But I think it is slightly problematic here. The purpose of ¶341 (Annex G) is not totally obvious to me (I probably don't understand the intricacies of the organizations in ICANN), but it looks slightly problematic because it appears that it would allow the ccNSO or GNSO (or both) to control access of various TLDs (including gov, edu, mil, arpa, and int) to the CSC. That could be controversial. Maybe I'm just misreading it? If so, perhaps a clarifying sentence along the following lines: "This provision is intended to ensure orderly formal arrangements, and is not intended to imply those other registries are subordinate to either the ccNSO or the GNSO." Also, there's a mistake in this ¶ -- "either…and". In ¶406 (Annex L), I think the removal of "naming" has indeed expanded the scope. I think I'd restore it. I realise now I've also always been uncomfortable with the "currently" in the text, since of course PTI doesn't actually exist yet. How about this: The entity prevailing in the RFP would carry out the role currently performed by PTI for the IANA naming Functions. ICANN would remain the contracting party for the performance of the IANA naming Functions and would enter into a contract, including a statement of work, with this entity. If PTI is selected to continue performance of the IANA Functions, it would remain an affiliate of ICANN (unless a structural change was a condition of the bid proposal or of the selection). Otherwise, the new entity would be a subcontractor for the performance of the IANA Functions. It should be noted that this does not address the way that non-naming IANA functions would be provided; depending on the arrangements with other communities, it is possible that those functions would move in concert with the naming functions; it is equally possible that they would not. I note that this suggests a tension with the first principle in Annex M (it's the "integrity" claim there that is problematic.) Many people (in all communities) are trying to avoid talking about these separation cases, however, so maybe we can just whistle a tune and look the other way. In Annex S, the preamble/disclaimer should probably get another sentence: "Because it is a sample, this term sheet may not be fully consistent with the body of the proposal. The reader should not treat such inconsistencies as significant; the rest of the proposal should be regarded as the authoritative version." Or something like this. I hope these comments are useful. I appreciate the work everyone's done on this. I will certainly not make Tuesday's call, because I have an all-day dayjob meeting. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Andrew, I want to thank you for the extensive and constructive efforts you have contributed to the CWG. They have been very valuable. Because I was one who strongly supported improved SLEs at transition, I want to communicate that I am comfortable with your " suggested text about SLEs at ¶133". In my comments submitted on Friday to v.3 of the proposal I expressed some concern about the softest of the word 'can' and would like to see a stronger commitment to improving the SLEs after transition but I accept the approach of deferring changes until after the transition. Regarding your comments on the diagram in Annex D I have to confess that I do not understand your point regarding the number of customers. Who would the fourth customer be if we changed 'three' to 'four"? Would your concern be resolved if we didn't use the word 'customer'? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 12:13 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC Hi, On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 04:07:05AM +0000, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes the edits listed below. Your comments are requested and welcome until Sunday 23:59 UTC.
I've read the last version. Thanks to the staff and all the contributors for all the work. I think this is pretty close to ready to ship. I have a few little comments. They're below. I should note that I've been reading given what I take to be the views of the CWG (so there may well be parts of the document that I don't agree with, but that I nevertheless think should be in the document because I think it reflects the view of the group. I remain somewhat worried about a tendency to try to do too much, and a little nervous about what PTI means for the overall IANA system, but I think we've already explored that pretty well). I am (pleasantly) surprised at the inclusion of my suggested text about SLEs at ¶133. I expect this is controversial given the discussion on the list (my impression is that many more people would like to make the changes immediately). I didn't see any responses to that suggestion on the list, so I want to make sure people are ok with it. As I've argued before, I think this is the most prudent approach, and I think giving 6 months gets us the improvements in a timely way while yet reducing the number of things that have to get done at the time of transition. Given ¶133, ¶199's "Service Levels" bullet could be altered slightly to say, "Because the current recommendation is to maintain the existing SLAs as SLEs at the time of transition, there is no time necessary to implement this. The proposal requires new SLEs at the end of six months, and it is anticipated that the work for implementation should be included in staff time estimates over that period. More generally on this section, the comment I sent last week still seems to me to be true: a few of these tasks are pretty close to things that either ICANN or others have already done, and it'd be really good to get some concrete estimates of how long tasks will take. That's what the ICG asked for. (If I actually knew how to make those estimates, I would offer text. But I think these things are mostly outside my own experience.) On the diagram in Annex D, there are three customers of PTI. This is a little unfortunate, since three is sort of a magic number in this discussion and it is not at all clear that the other communities are going to deal directly with PTI. This could be easily solved by changing the number of customers to some number other than three (I suggest four, so that it's clear). I do note that every other collection of people on the diagram is also three, so I suspect this is just a standard design trope. But I think it is slightly problematic here. The purpose of ¶341 (Annex G) is not totally obvious to me (I probably don't understand the intricacies of the organizations in ICANN), but it looks slightly problematic because it appears that it would allow the ccNSO or GNSO (or both) to control access of various TLDs (including gov, edu, mil, arpa, and int) to the CSC. That could be controversial. Maybe I'm just misreading it? If so, perhaps a clarifying sentence along the following lines: "This provision is intended to ensure orderly formal arrangements, and is not intended to imply those other registries are subordinate to either the ccNSO or the GNSO." Also, there's a mistake in this ¶ -- "either…and". In ¶406 (Annex L), I think the removal of "naming" has indeed expanded the scope. I think I'd restore it. I realise now I've also always been uncomfortable with the "currently" in the text, since of course PTI doesn't actually exist yet. How about this: The entity prevailing in the RFP would carry out the role currently performed by PTI for the IANA naming Functions. ICANN would remain the contracting party for the performance of the IANA naming Functions and would enter into a contract, including a statement of work, with this entity. If PTI is selected to continue performance of the IANA Functions, it would remain an affiliate of ICANN (unless a structural change was a condition of the bid proposal or of the selection). Otherwise, the new entity would be a subcontractor for the performance of the IANA Functions. It should be noted that this does not address the way that non-naming IANA functions would be provided; depending on the arrangements with other communities, it is possible that those functions would move in concert with the naming functions; it is equally possible that they would not. I note that this suggests a tension with the first principle in Annex M (it's the "integrity" claim there that is problematic.) Many people (in all communities) are trying to avoid talking about these separation cases, however, so maybe we can just whistle a tune and look the other way. In Annex S, the preamble/disclaimer should probably get another sentence: "Because it is a sample, this term sheet may not be fully consistent with the body of the proposal. The reader should not treat such inconsistencies as significant; the rest of the proposal should be regarded as the authoritative version." Or something like this. I hope these comments are useful. I appreciate the work everyone's done on this. I will certainly not make Tuesday's call, because I have an all-day dayjob meeting. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Grace, all See my comments below and I've also added a comment From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2015 9:07 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC 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. Areas that require feedback: * Paragraph 164 (p.32): needs text * Paragraph 172 (p.34): DT-F to confirm edit * Section IV edits should be reviewed by CWG (Andrew perhaps?) * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?) * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of footnote * Page 73: DT-C to confirm response to Sidley comment In response to Sidley's comment: Is this an IFR or something else? The answer is it is not an IFR, but it could be something else undertaken by ICANN to address the performance issue/s that has been bought to the attention of the ICANN Board/CEO by the CSC because the issues have not been resolved via other means. A few things to note regarding the Remediation Action Plan: * It is for illustrative purposes only. * It is intended that a Remediation Action Plan would be developed and agreed by the PTI and CSC after both have been established. * The Remediation Action Plan was drafted before an IFR was created. Page 78: Annex J-I have added a comment. There is a step missing between 3) and 4) It was not envisaged that attempts at remediation by the CSC would stop at the PTI Board, they would then follow a path of escalation through the President, GDD and then ICANN Board/CEO if required. So it is certainly not the case that if there is no resolution at the PTI Board level that the next step would be the ccNSO and GNSO. This is consistent with the draft Remedial Action Plan. * Page 80: DT-M to review footnote * Page 81: DT-M/DT-C to comment on Sidley note The page numbers may have changed due to changes. I did not see a note on Page 81. * Paragraph 389 (p.92): DT-N/SR/X to define "Review Team Liaison" per Sidley's comment * Page 111 & 112: Bernard to address Sidley comments Edits included in version 3: * All the comments & edits from Greg, Avri, Sidley, Lise and Andrew. * The following items from today's call: * Paragraph 123 has been reviewed to be internally consistent * Paragraph 141: adjusted text around CCWG-Accountability structure * Paragraph 167: removed sentence * Paragraph 170: Removed the word "multistakholder" and use 'customer-based' instead) * Added footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is also in Annex to section II) * Paragraph 275: fixed composition of IFRT (and also fixed this in SCWG composition) * Annex S: Added disclaimer about term sheet * DT C Charter updates (see Section III and Annex G) * Section IV edits * Section VI edits As you know, we had a technical glitch with document versions right before the call yesterday. In recovering the version, there were a lot of formatting changes that had to be done. I have attached version 2.5 (the in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday. We are almost there! Grace
Hi all, I'm generally ok with this. Thanks to the secretariat for an excellent job (again) in pulling all the bits together. A few comments (mainly questions and minor suggestions, but the comments on paragraph 133, Annex G and page 118 are substantive): * Paragraph 108: question - wouldn't legally transferring "related resources, processes, data, and know-how" to PTI mean that there would need to be a process for recovering this should the IANA functions operation be subject to an RfP? Or put another way, wouldn't it be easier to grant the PTI rights to use while keeping these under the rights of ICANN? * Paragraph 105: suggestion - given it is an American legal term, shouldn't "affiliate" be explained somewhere? * Paragraph 112 & footnote 8: repeated wording - the idea of using NomCom is in the paragraph and in the footnote using slightly different wording. I'd suggest deleting "for which the NomCom is qualified" to avoid confusion. * Paragraph 120 footnote 10: missing text - I suggest that you add "periodic review" at the end of the footnote. * Paragraph 133: I have concerns about this new text on SLEs. I see no reason to expect SLEs to be "in keeping with actual IANA performance" and have noted in the past that SLEs should be related to operational requirements. There can be a substantial cost impact of setting SLEs too high. That a performance is not set as a service level does not prevent it being monitored to see how the IANA functions operator is performing. I would suggest replacing, "more in keeping with actual IANA performance" by "appropriate to the needs of customers." * Paragraph 142 2: question - should we say who is responsible for developing the transition framework? * Annex D: question - I thought that we had agreed that the IFR should report to the ICANN Board. It would then be for them to discuss action with the PTI Board. * Annex F: missing footnote - footnote 48 is absent of content. * Annex G: table in paragraph 356 last cell. I'm not sure how this has happened but the second bullet ("independent review ... can continue") seems to suggest escalation at this stage, whereas this is about remedial action and we have also agreed that the CSC would escalate through the ccNSO & GNSO. Actually I think that this step was seen as approaching the parent company to try to unblock the issues (this might be appropriate if the PTI needs additional resources - budget, additional staff beyond their agreed plans). This bullet should really be about ICANN Board intervention to address issues? * Annex L: Paragraph 392 3rd bullet: clarification - I really think that before going to develop the RfP, the SCWG should seek input on views for what needs to be included in the RfP (in particular from the customers, although the NoI & FNoI were to the community when NTIA went through this process. This would help focus thinking in the preparation of the requirements for the new contract. * Annex S page 116 ("COST/PRICE"): pure ignorance - I'm not sure what "No charge to ICANN" means. All (or most) ccTLD contributions to the operation of the IANA are via the ccNSO (the voluntary contributions). So I would expect ICANN to pass on the PTI that amount that was calculated as being the cost of the IANA service. What am I missing? * Page 118 top row comment [KP68]: we have agreed that there should not be an independent evaluation of root-zone change requests, so this row should remain deleted, shouldn't it? Thanks By the way, I will not be able to join the call on Tuesday evening, but I'm happy to try to respond to any feedback on the issues I have identified. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: 05 June 2015 05:07 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC Importance: High 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. Areas that require feedback: * Paragraph 164 (p.32): needs text * Paragraph 172 (p.34): DT-F to confirm edit * Section IV edits should be reviewed by CWG (Andrew perhaps?) * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?) * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of footnote * Page 73: DT-C to confirm response to Sidley comment * Page 80: DT-M to review footnote * Page 81: DT-M/DT-C to comment on Sidley note * Paragraph 389 (p.92): DT-N/SR/X to define "Review Team Liaison" per Sidley's comment * Page 111 & 112: Bernard to address Sidley comments Edits included in version 3: * All the comments & edits from Greg, Avri, Sidley, Lise and Andrew. * The following items from today's call: * Paragraph 123 has been reviewed to be internally consistent * Paragraph 141: adjusted text around CCWG-Accountability structure * Paragraph 167: removed sentence * Paragraph 170: Removed the word "multistakholder" and use 'customer-based' instead) * Added footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is also in Annex to section II) * Paragraph 275: fixed composition of IFRT (and also fixed this in SCWG composition) * Annex S: Added disclaimer about term sheet * DT C Charter updates (see Section III and Annex G) * Section IV edits * Section VI edits As you know, we had a technical glitch with document versions right before the call yesterday. In recovering the version, there were a lot of formatting changes that had to be done. I have attached version 2.5 (the in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday. We are almost there! Grace
participants (12)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
Donna Austin -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Jonathan Robinson -
Lindeberg, Elise -
Martin Boyle -
Matthew Shears -
Milton L Mueller