Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi, *Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghMYLF1FCg...> This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project. I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Avri, Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process. Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3rd May 2015, I noted the following point: Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.] It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR. Jonathan From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 02 May 2015 20:02 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process Hi, Action item: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: < <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghMYLF1FCg...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghMYLF1FCg...> This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project. I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like. avri _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
Hi, Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning. In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities: - one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered. - one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ... Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration. But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned. Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that. Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic avri drive doc on separation process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghMYLF1FCg...>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
I personally agree with Avri that the IFR is "a review group not a solution group". I think the solution options should be predefined as well as an escalation process for choosing solutions. One term I am not comfortable with for IFR is 'minimalist' registry. Without disagreeing with the multi-stakeholder composition of the IFRT, I don't think the direct customers of the IANA services should ever be in a 'minimalist' position at least as I understand that term. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process Hi, Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning. In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities: - one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered. - one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ... Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration. But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned. Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that. Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic avri drive doc on separation process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghM YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, I think the Registries have a larger footprint on the proposed IFR Team than others. Not what I generally favor, but seems to be the way we are heading on all CWG teams. Personally have real difficulties with all of the direct versus indirect customer bias. avri On 06-May-15 11:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I personally agree with Avri that the IFR is "a review group not a solution group". I think the solution options should be predefined as well as an escalation process for choosing solutions.
One term I am not comfortable with for IFR is 'minimalist' registry. Without disagreeing with the multi-stakeholder composition of the IFRT, I don't think the direct customers of the IANA services should ever be in a 'minimalist' position at least as I understand that term.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning.
In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities:
- one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered.
- one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution
I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ...
Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration.
But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned.
Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that.
Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic
avri
drive doc on separation process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...>
On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghM YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Hi My phrase
minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder
Was unclear What it means was that it was a minimalist body, with only 1 rep for most entities But it is registry heavy in that registries have extra seats As a reminder of what is in Annex F: 1 ccNSO 1 cctLd not ccNSO 2 Rysg 3 other GNSO (RrSG, CSG, NCSG) 1 each from (GAC, SSAC, RSSAC, ALAC) 1 CSC Laision Given that the CSC liaison is probably a direct customer, aka a registry, we have 5 from registries 7 from other I should probably also indicate that the GNSO has the biggest SOAC footprint in the current IFR Team proposal. 5 GNSO to 1 of every other SOAC. avri On 06-May-15 12:01, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I think the Registries have a larger footprint on the proposed IFR Team than others.
Not what I generally favor, but seems to be the way we are heading on all CWG teams. Personally have real difficulties with all of the direct versus indirect customer bias.
avri
On 06-May-15 11:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I personally agree with Avri that the IFR is "a review group not a solution group". I think the solution options should be predefined as well as an escalation process for choosing solutions.
One term I am not comfortable with for IFR is 'minimalist' registry. Without disagreeing with the multi-stakeholder composition of the IFRT, I don't think the direct customers of the IANA services should ever be in a 'minimalist' position at least as I understand that term.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning.
In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities:
- one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered.
- one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution
I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ...
Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration.
But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned.
Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that.
Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic
avri
drive doc on separation process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...>
On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghM YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Thanks Avri. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 2:25 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process Hi My phrase
minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder
Was unclear What it means was that it was a minimalist body, with only 1 rep for most entities But it is registry heavy in that registries have extra seats As a reminder of what is in Annex F: 1 ccNSO 1 cctLd not ccNSO 2 Rysg 3 other GNSO (RrSG, CSG, NCSG) 1 each from (GAC, SSAC, RSSAC, ALAC) 1 CSC Laision Given that the CSC liaison is probably a direct customer, aka a registry, we have 5 from registries 7 from other I should probably also indicate that the GNSO has the biggest SOAC footprint in the current IFR Team proposal. 5 GNSO to 1 of every other SOAC. avri On 06-May-15 12:01, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I think the Registries have a larger footprint on the proposed IFR Team than others.
Not what I generally favor, but seems to be the way we are heading on all CWG teams. Personally have real difficulties with all of the direct versus indirect customer bias.
avri
On 06-May-15 11:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I personally agree with Avri that the IFR is "a review group not a solution group". I think the solution options should be predefined as well as an escalation process for choosing solutions.
One term I am not comfortable with for IFR is 'minimalist' registry. Without disagreeing with the multi-stakeholder composition of the IFRT, I don't think the direct customers of the IANA services should ever be in a 'minimalist' position at least as I understand that term.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning.
In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities:
- one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered.
- one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution
I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ...
Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration.
But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned.
Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that.
Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic
avri
drive doc on separation process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYD tF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3g hM YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I will accept your bias Avri if you accept mine. :) Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:01 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process Hi, I think the Registries have a larger footprint on the proposed IFR Team than others. Not what I generally favor, but seems to be the way we are heading on all CWG teams. Personally have real difficulties with all of the direct versus indirect customer bias. avri On 06-May-15 11:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I personally agree with Avri that the IFR is "a review group not a solution group". I think the solution options should be predefined as well as an escalation process for choosing solutions.
One term I am not comfortable with for IFR is 'minimalist' registry. Without disagreeing with the multi-stakeholder composition of the IFRT, I don't think the direct customers of the IANA services should ever be in a 'minimalist' position at least as I understand that term.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning.
In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities:
- one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered.
- one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution
I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ...
Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration.
But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned.
Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that.
Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic
avri
drive doc on separation process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDt F_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3gh M YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - --
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, Seems fair. avri On 06-May-15 14:27, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I will accept your bias Avri if you accept mine. :)
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:01 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
I think the Registries have a larger footprint on the proposed IFR Team than others.
Not what I generally favor, but seems to be the way we are heading on all CWG teams. Personally have real difficulties with all of the direct versus indirect customer bias.
avri
On 06-May-15 11:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I personally agree with Avri that the IFR is "a review group not a solution group". I think the solution options should be predefined as well as an escalation process for choosing solutions.
One term I am not comfortable with for IFR is 'minimalist' registry. Without disagreeing with the multi-stakeholder composition of the IFRT, I don't think the direct customers of the IANA services should ever be in a 'minimalist' position at least as I understand that term.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning.
In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities:
- one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered.
- one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution
I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ...
Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration.
But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned.
Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that.
Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic
avri
drive doc on separation process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDt F_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3gh M YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - --
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I think the Registries have a larger footprint on the proposed IFR Team than others.
Which is of great concern to me especially as IFRT is the group that determines the faith of PTI (in terms of contract renewal). Few questions immediately comes to mind requiring clarification: - Whats the scope of IFRT as it concerns making decisions about IANA (as it concerns the 3 communities) and how does this take arrangements of other 2 communities into account - If the scope of IFRT is to decide on names related part of IANA "only" then what will the composition of IFRT look like - If IFRT determines that PTI has fumbled beyond repair and calls for RFP, what becomes of PTI as an organisation(also in the context of PTI serving as operator for the other 2 communities)
Not what I generally favor, but seems to be the way we are heading on all CWG teams. Personally have real difficulties with all of the direct versus indirect customer bias.
+1 on this as well Cheers!
avri
On 06-May-15 11:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I personally agree with Avri that the IFR is "a review group not a solution group". I think the solution options should be predefined as well as an escalation process for choosing solutions.
One term I am not comfortable with for IFR is 'minimalist' registry. Without disagreeing with the multi-stakeholder composition of the IFRT, I don't think the direct customers of the IANA services should ever be in a 'minimalist' position at least as I understand that term.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning.
In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities:
- one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered.
- one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution
I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ...
Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration.
But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned.
Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that.
Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic
avri
drive doc on separation process < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...
On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghM YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
I think this is getting way too complex. The IFR should basically produce two types of outcomes. * One is on the order of: change this, fix that. PTI either does that satisfactorily or not, CSC follows up. * The other is: things are not so great, it may be time to change providers, let's have an RFP. The notion of a lengthy and costly review process in turn triggering a new "separation review" which in turn recommends an RFP which in turn triggers an RFP development and selection process strikes me as self-evidently absurd. I know I am more constitutionally allergic to bureaucracy than most people but surely even normal people might find this a bit too much. Justice delayed is justice denied. Accountability delayed is accountability denied. If the process for addressing serious problems in PTI performance drags on for 7 years (IFR + SR + RFP) or more, there is no real accountability. The process can be gamed to death, among other things. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 11:54 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
I personally agree with Avri that the IFR is "a review group not a solution group". I think the solution options should be predefined as well as an escalation process for choosing solutions.
One term I am not comfortable with for IFR is 'minimalist' registry. Without disagreeing with the multi-stakeholder composition of the IFRT, I don't think the direct customers of the IANA services should ever be in a 'minimalist' position at least as I understand that term.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning.
In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities:
- one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered.
- one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution
I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ...
Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration.
But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned.
Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that.
Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic
avri
drive doc on separation process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5- gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the
many
recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG- kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghM YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I agree that from the point of decision to separate to selection of a new contractor the process needs to be quick, subject to doing a good job. However, between the IFR's "let's have an RfP" and the development of an RfP there is a crucial step - that of adoption of the recommendation (which does need some formal process, *including consultation*) that triggers the process, the next steps of which, as appropriate, the development of the RfP. While I do not want to put in unnecessary bureaucracy, I am allergic to small and possibly unaccountable (or hard to hold to account) groups making fundamental changes without wider engagement. If the IFR has done its job well, it has got the feel of the wider community and the decision process then becomes much easier. In other words, I would only see a process dragging out if there were little real cross community consensus, in which case it would be better to work on other ways of addressing issues. Using bureaucracy to delay is not a good solution because it is time-wasting, frustrating for everyone and prevents resolution of serious issues: the consensus decision needs to be made first. Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 06 May 2015 23:48 To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'avri@acm.org'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process I think this is getting way too complex. The IFR should basically produce two types of outcomes. * One is on the order of: change this, fix that. PTI either does that satisfactorily or not, CSC follows up. * The other is: things are not so great, it may be time to change providers, let's have an RFP. The notion of a lengthy and costly review process in turn triggering a new "separation review" which in turn recommends an RFP which in turn triggers an RFP development and selection process strikes me as self-evidently absurd. I know I am more constitutionally allergic to bureaucracy than most people but surely even normal people might find this a bit too much. Justice delayed is justice denied. Accountability delayed is accountability denied. If the process for addressing serious problems in PTI performance drags on for 7 years (IFR + SR + RFP) or more, there is no real accountability. The process can be gamed to death, among other things. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 11:54 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
I personally agree with Avri that the IFR is "a review group not a solution group". I think the solution options should be predefined as well as an escalation process for choosing solutions.
One term I am not comfortable with for IFR is 'minimalist' registry. Without disagreeing with the multi-stakeholder composition of the IFRT, I don't think the direct customers of the IANA services should ever be in a 'minimalist' position at least as I understand that term.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:39 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning.
In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities:
- one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered.
- one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution
I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ...
Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration.
But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned.
Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that.
Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic
avri
drive doc on separation process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5- gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the
many
recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG- kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghM YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Avri, I'll look forward to responses and development of the ideas as they arise. Apologies if I have or seem to have asked the same question more than once in this instance. I didn't recognise it as my original question, only a question that appeared to be unanswered on review of the memo. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 06 May 2015 16:39 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process Hi, Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the beginning. In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I think they are different activities: - one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation that something further needs to be done. It is a review group not a solution group. Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation. But it may happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the Separability Process needs to be entered. - one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and executes a solution I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets, different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ... Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder IFR Team. I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition event or maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale of periodic review team. If we enter a further separation phase the world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want to participate in the consideration. But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about these details. It can work either way, I am sure. It is all fungible process pieces. So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR process I am sure it can be fashioned. Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to some extent, a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not. Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind. I had been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that. Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or other views on the topic avri drive doc on separation process <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
*/Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
*Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghM YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Jonathan Robinson -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
Seun Ojedeji