For your review - version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan
Dear All, Please find attached version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan. This version includes the following minor revisions: * Edits to address the points raised by Andrew * Edits to address the comments from Brenden * Edits to clarify some areas, fix typos and fix a couple of places where we still had references to NTIA and/or contractor in the proposed language. To facilitate your review, the previous redlines have been accepted and only those changes that were made to this version are in redline. Of course, that should not prevent you from making any comments, edits or questions on any other parts of the document. Best regards, Marika
Marika Konings writes:
Please find attached version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan.
Marika, Maybe it is just me, but I tend to use the Wiki more and more for finding documents. Cold we have these more or less consolidated versions placed on the Wiki? The latest one I can find is the plan from Deember. (Or do I look in the wrong place?) Thanks, jaap
Hi Jaap, All CWG related documents can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg. Version 2.2.1 will be uploaded shortly. Best regards, Marika On 18/03/15 13:00, "Jaap Akkerhuis" <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:
Marika Konings writes:
Please find attached version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan.
Marika,
Maybe it is just me, but I tend to use the Wiki more and more for finding documents. Cold we have these more or less consolidated versions placed on the Wiki? The latest one I can find is the plan from Deember.
(Or do I look in the wrong place?)
Thanks,
jaap
Hi all -- The draft 2.2.1 is now uploaded. On 3/18/15 9:30 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jaap,
All CWG related documents can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg. Version 2.2.1 will be uploaded shortly.
Best regards,
Marika
On 18/03/15 13:00, "Jaap Akkerhuis" <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:
Marika Konings writes:
Please find attached version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan.
Marika,
Maybe it is just me, but I tend to use the Wiki more and more for finding documents. Cold we have these more or less consolidated versions placed on the Wiki? The latest one I can find is the plan from Deember.
(Or do I look in the wrong place?)
Thanks,
jaap
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear colleagues, On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:16:34AM +0000, Marika Konings wrote:
Please find attached version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan. This version includes the following minor revisions:
* Edits to address the points raised by Andrew
Thanks for this. I still wonder about the discussion of RFC 1591. The text still says, "This document was not meant to be a policy document …," yet in the paragraph immediately before that it says, "It is a short document intended to outline how the domain name system was structured at that time and what rules were in place to decide on its expansion." In other words, it's a document that outlines the policies then governing the root zone. I'm not sure how else one might describe it, but maybe "policy" is being used here in a way I don't understand. In the paragraph about FOIWG Recommendations, it says "in light of the Internet today". That strikes me as potentially too great a scope. I'd suggest, "in light of the move of the IANA function to ICANN." I _think_ that is the whole of the scope of the FOIWG Recommendations. Later on the same page, about policy disputes, we have, "Currently RFC1591 only applies to ccTLDs, .GOV, and .MIL and most of these do not have any contracts which specify a dispute resolution mechanism with ICANN." It seems to me that RFC 1591 applies to INT as well, though perhaps the dispute resolution mechanism doesn't. I can't tell from the context whether this sentence is intended to say, "Currently, the dispute resolution mechanisms in RFC 1591 …." Perhaps just adding INT to the list would help. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
RFC 1591 described the environment and conditions surrounding the root zone at the time. It was intended to be a snapshot, an image in time, of how things were. A description of how it was structured and what rules were in place does not make it a policy document, it was/is a narrative of the times. I am dubious about your recommendation to lump .INT in with other TLDs that are clearly bound by a single sovereign policy. The .INT space was and now is again based on the core premise of membership being a treaty organization (there remain some legacy entries when the rules were different for .INT). It is a subtle difference, but worth considering. The .INT space does not fall cleanly or neatly into RFC 1591 dispute resolution nor is there an entity which _could_ enter into a contract with ICANN. It really is a different animal. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 19March2015Thursday, at 4:51, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:16:34AM +0000, Marika Konings wrote:
Please find attached version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan. This version includes the following minor revisions:
* Edits to address the points raised by Andrew
Thanks for this.
I still wonder about the discussion of RFC 1591. The text still says, "This document was not meant to be a policy document …," yet in the paragraph immediately before that it says, "It is a short document intended to outline how the domain name system was structured at that time and what rules were in place to decide on its expansion." In other words, it's a document that outlines the policies then governing the root zone. I'm not sure how else one might describe it, but maybe "policy" is being used here in a way I don't understand.
In the paragraph about FOIWG Recommendations, it says "in light of the Internet today". That strikes me as potentially too great a scope. I'd suggest, "in light of the move of the IANA function to ICANN." I _think_ that is the whole of the scope of the FOIWG Recommendations.
Later on the same page, about policy disputes, we have, "Currently RFC1591 only applies to ccTLDs, .GOV, and .MIL and most of these do not have any contracts which specify a dispute resolution mechanism with ICANN." It seems to me that RFC 1591 applies to INT as well, though perhaps the dispute resolution mechanism doesn't. I can't tell from the context whether this sentence is intended to say, "Currently, the dispute resolution mechanisms in RFC 1591 …." Perhaps just adding INT to the list would help.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Bill, On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:10:52AM -0700, manning bill wrote:
RFC 1591 described the environment and conditions surrounding the root zone at the time. It was intended to be a snapshot, an image in time, of how things were. A description of how it was structured and what rules were in place does not make it a policy document, it was/is a narrative of the times.
I am leery of attributing intention to authors who are not around to ask (and even if they are around to ask, memory is a tricky thing). What we have is a document, and it describes a set of rules about how a thing operates. I think that's a policy document. If it's not, what else would you call it? "Narrative of the times," doesn't seem to me to be true: it isn't structured as a narrative, and the Introduction doesn't say, "This is what things are like right now," but rather, "Here's the structure and administrative rules."
I am dubious about your recommendation to lump .INT in with other TLDs that are clearly bound by a single sovereign policy. The .INT space was and now is again based on the core premise of membership being a treaty organization (there remain some legacy entries when the rules were different for .INT). It is a subtle difference, but worth considering. The .INT space does not fall cleanly or neatly into RFC 1591 dispute resolution nor is there an entity which _could_ enter into a contract with ICANN. It really is a different animal.
That's why I was asking what the scope of that sentence is. As written now, it's clearly false. If the scope is to say that the dispute resolution mechanism doesn't apply to INT, that's ok with me, but I wonder how one would found such a claim. I guess this is a job that'll have to be taken up by the relevant DT. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
and yet, as you called out earlier, RFC 1591 says, "It is a short document intended to outline how the domain name system was structured at that time and what rules were in place to decide on its expansion.” so it DOES say, “this is how things were”. And its an outline. It is not prescriptive going forward. Agree that when DT-H is formed, these topics will have a venue. Perhaps we can chat @ DFW, if you will be there. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 19March2015Thursday, at 5:34, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi Bill,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:10:52AM -0700, manning bill wrote:
RFC 1591 described the environment and conditions surrounding the root zone at the time. It was intended to be a snapshot, an image in time, of how things were. A description of how it was structured and what rules were in place does not make it a policy document, it was/is a narrative of the times.
I am leery of attributing intention to authors who are not around to ask (and even if they are around to ask, memory is a tricky thing). What we have is a document, and it describes a set of rules about how a thing operates. I think that's a policy document. If it's not, what else would you call it? "Narrative of the times," doesn't seem to me to be true: it isn't structured as a narrative, and the Introduction doesn't say, "This is what things are like right now," but rather, "Here's the structure and administrative rules."
I am dubious about your recommendation to lump .INT in with other TLDs that are clearly bound by a single sovereign policy. The .INT space was and now is again based on the core premise of membership being a treaty organization (there remain some legacy entries when the rules were different for .INT). It is a subtle difference, but worth considering. The .INT space does not fall cleanly or neatly into RFC 1591 dispute resolution nor is there an entity which _could_ enter into a contract with ICANN. It really is a different animal.
That's why I was asking what the scope of that sentence is. As written now, it's clearly false. If the scope is to say that the dispute resolution mechanism doesn't apply to INT, that's ok with me, but I wonder how one would found such a claim. I guess this is a job that'll have to be taken up by the relevant DT.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:07:01AM -0700, manning bill wrote:
and yet, as you called out earlier, RFC 1591 says, "It is a short document intended to outline how the domain name system was structured at that time and what rules were in place to decide on its expansion.”
I don't believe 1591 says that anywhere in it. I just grepped for "short" and I do not find it. The text you're quoting there is from the current CWG draft.
so it DOES say, “this is how things were”. And its an outline. It is not prescriptive going forward.
Nothing in the RFC series is ever prescriptive going forward, because you can always obsolete an RFC with a replacement.
Agree that when DT-H is formed, these topics will have a venue. Perhaps we can chat @ DFW, if you will be there.
Sure. I will be. Busy week, though. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
participants (5)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Grace Abuhamad -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
manning bill -
Marika Konings