Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
I don't think that is quite correct. Certainly, with or without ICANN moving the RZM away from the current IANA, the IETF and RIRs could in theory decide to stop using IANA and move their registries to TGNIITS (The Great New IANA in the Sky). I do not know the implication of the RIRs moving to TGNIITS. We still have the ASO in ICANN, and they still in theory recommend address policy to the ICANN Board. It is less clear whether the RIR agreement with TGNIITS requires them to abide by ICANN directives related to addresses. If it does, it is still business as usual for us. If the new agreement with TGNIITS does NOT require adherance to our policy, then it would be interesting who they have replacing us. So the question is less about separation and more on whose authority are we doing what we are now doing. And I don't think there is a real answer other than one based on history. But I do not think that it truly hinges on where the current IANA function resides, as long as the other agreements, written and more importantly unwritten, do not change. Alan At 14/05/2015 10:02 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Hi, Alan.
In your scenario: IFO for names moves to another entity with ICANN retaining "stewardship".
Numbers and Protocol Parameters communities have options to consider (i.e., follow or don't follow).
If they do not follow (and assuming they do not stay with ICANN either), ICANN's mission fundamentally changes and ICANN would become ICAN.
Is this correct as a possible outcome of this separation?
Rinalia On May 15, 2015 8:21 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: My understanding is that "separation" changes who the IANA Function Operator is and possibly the specifics of how it is connected to ICANN. But ICANN remains the steward of the function. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On May 14, 2015 7:35:12 PM EDT, Eduardo Diaz <<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote: Avri:
The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct?
-ed
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri@acm.org> wrote: hi,
On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full
separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take.
avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From:
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file.
and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. <http://www.avast.com>http://www.avast.com
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. <http://www.avast.com>http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
----------
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Alan, The RIR in it's proposal has indicated it would prefer to sign it's agreement with ICANN directly (most likely IETF would do the same). Both contracts allows either party to withdraw their service based on defined notice period. So yes, such move by RIR for instance would practically mean that the last N of ICANN is no longer in operation. ASO is currently there because there is an agreement between ICANN and NRO and I don't expect that agreement to survive if ICANN no longer operates numbers part of the function. That said, with respect to Avri's writeup, I am also wondering what the full separation of affiliate mean since I now understand affiliate to mean an entity not "owned" by ICANN. If there is going to be any further separation, I would think initiating an RFP process and moving the function to another operator would be the case; ICANN is now the steward not PTI Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. I don't think that is quite correct. Certainly, with or without ICANN moving the RZM away from the current IANA, the IETF and RIRs could in theory decide to stop using IANA and move their registries to TGNIITS (The Great New IANA in the Sky). I do not know the implication of the RIRs moving to TGNIITS. We still have the ASO in ICANN, and they still in theory recommend address policy to the ICANN Board. It is less clear whether the RIR agreement with TGNIITS requires them to abide by ICANN directives related to addresses. If it does, it is still business as usual for us. If the new agreement with TGNIITS does NOT require adherance to our policy, then it would be interesting who they have replacing us. So the question is less about separation and more on whose authority are we doing what we are now doing. And I don't think there is a real answer other than one based on history. But I do not think that it truly hinges on where the current IANA function resides, as long as the other agreements, written and more importantly unwritten, do not change. Alan At 14/05/2015 10:02 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: Hi, Alan. In your scenario: IFO for names moves to another entity with ICANN retaining "stewardship". Numbers and Protocol Parameters communities have options to consider (i.e., follow or don't follow). If they do not follow (and assuming they do not stay with ICANN either), ICANN's mission fundamentally changes and ICANN would become ICAN. Is this correct as a possible outcome of this separation? Rinalia On May 15, 2015 8:21 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: My understanding is that "separation" changes who the IANA Function Operator is and possibly the specifics of how it is connected to ICANN. But ICANN remains the steward of the function. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On May 14, 2015 7:35:12 PM EDT, Eduardo Diaz < eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote: Avri: The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct? -ed On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: hi, On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of
the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN? Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take. avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...
and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 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 -- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. ------------------------------ 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
On 15-May-15 06:36, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
That said, with respect to Avri's writeup, I am also wondering what the full separation of affiliate mean since I now understand affiliate to mean an entity not "owned" by ICANN. If there is going to be any further separation, I would think initiating an RFP process and moving the function to another operator would be the case; ICANN is now the steward not PTI
As I understood: If the PTI is a LLC, then it would be completely owned by ICANN and could even be dissolved by ICANN and reabsorbed. If the PTI is an affiliate with a Insider board it is not owned but it is completely controlled via its Board, Contract and Budget. If the PTI is an affiliate with an outsider Board it is not owned but it is controlled via Contract and Budget. To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend. As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive. May I please have a response to this? --MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
hi, I have responded. Several times I thought. Maybe you just did not like my epxlanation. 1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called nuclear process is the one to execute that process. It is a checks and balances sort of thing. You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude. 2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the same sort of full community review and support that transition requires. This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a regualr event in the current formulaton. 3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to easily slip under them. If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal That is why I beleive it is not Over-bureaucratization of this process but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community due consideration. avri On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.
May I please have a response to this?
--MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
OK. I think the difference here is that I don't see a change of IANA functions providers as "nuclear," and while I don't think it is "ordinary" the word "extraordinary" also seems overstated to me. I see it as an organization replacing a bad service provider with a good one. No more - or no less - significant than changing an ISP. To get good accountability in this case you need quick and decisive action to replace an incompetent or rogue operator.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:42 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
hi,
I have responded. Several times I thought. Maybe you just did not like my epxlanation.
1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called nuclear process is the one to execute that process. It is a checks and balances sort of thing. You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude.
2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the same sort of full community review and support that transition requires. This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a regualr event in the current formulaton.
3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to easily slip under them. If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal
That is why I beleive it is not
Over-bureaucratization of this process
but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community due consideration.
avri
On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.
May I please have a response to this?
--MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
--- 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
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
... I see it as an organization replacing a bad service provider with a good one. No more - or no less - significant than changing an ISP.
I don't think the change is as simple as that; A change of IANA operator goes beyond just swapping and signing contract, the experience history in the current IANA operating staff will be lost and that is of great importance to me. Secondly i think its quite an hypothesis to already determined that the new IANA operator is a good one, without having tried them in any way. Its easier and can be condoned now because we are still maintaining the operation process and staff of IANA within PTI. So a total change in IANA operator....will indeed be nuclear option to me. (short of a better word than Nuclear) Regards
To get good accountability in this case you need quick and decisive action to replace an incompetent or rogue operator.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:42 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
hi,
I have responded. Several times I thought. Maybe you just did not like my epxlanation.
1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called nuclear process is the one to execute that process. It is a checks and balances sort of thing. You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude.
2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the same sort of full community review and support that transition requires. This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a regualr event in the current formulaton.
3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to easily slip under them. If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal
That is why I beleive it is not
Over-bureaucratization of this process
but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community due consideration.
avri
On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.
May I please have a response to this?
--MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
--- 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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 !
On 15-May-15 13:34, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
will indeed be nuclear option to me. (short of a better word than Nuclear)
Nuclear not in the sense of bombs and destruction, But in terms of splitting something unitary that for a long while was thought of as a fundmental building block. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 15-May-15 13:34, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
will indeed be nuclear option to me. (short of a better word than Nuclear)
Nuclear not in the sense of bombs and destruction,
Nuclear in the sense of taking the "transfer to another operator" option as last of the last when every other attempt to fix the current operator has failed.
But in terms of splitting something unitary that for a long while was thought of as a fundmental building block.
Not sure i got your description, but if it means the same thing as i have stated above then fine Regards
avri
--- 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 don't think the change is as simple as that; MM: apparently you haven’t changed ISPs lately. ;-) Not so simple A change of IANA operator goes beyond just swapping and signing contract, the experience history in the current IANA operating staff will be lost and that is of great importance to me. Secondly i think its quite an hypothesis to already determined that the new IANA operator is a good one, without having tried them in any way. MM: The IANA operator will be changed only if the “current IANA operating staff” has so frustrated its users that they want to change. So yes, their experience history will be discarded but only if our experience and history with them is bad. And yes, you don’t really know for sure how the new one will perform – this is exactly like an ISP change and a lot of other service changes
Well all I am saying is we should not liken change of IANA operator to that of ISP, the level of simplicity is just different. For me it's not just about the switching, it's also about how that may impact the stability/security of IANA operation. However should it be possible to change? Absolutely but for unresolvable reasons which I am glad you seem to agree to as well. Regards PS: I am currently in the process of changing ISP for an organisation and I can tell you that changing is not always simple in that world as well ;-) sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 15 May 2015 22:50, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
I don't think the change is as simple as that;
MM: apparently you haven’t changed ISPs lately. ;-) Not so simple
A change of IANA operator goes beyond just swapping and signing contract, the experience history in the current IANA operating staff will be lost and that is of great importance to me. Secondly i think its quite an hypothesis to already determined that the new IANA operator is a good one, without having tried them in any way.
MM: The IANA operator will be changed only if the “current IANA operating staff” has so frustrated its users that they want to change. So yes, their experience history will be discarded but only if our experience and history with them is bad. And yes, you don’t really know for sure how the new one will perform – this is exactly like an ISP change and a lot of other service changes
<<I see it as an organization replacing a bad service provider with a good one. No more - or no less - significant than changing an ISP. >> That's how I see it as well - in order to maintain operational excellence for IANA services. The second question - not independent from the operational related one - is then how to make this "new operator" accountable. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 12:20 PM To: avri@acm.org ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process OK. I think the difference here is that I don't see a change of IANA functions providers as "nuclear," and while I don't think it is "ordinary" the word "extraordinary" also seems overstated to me. I see it as an organization replacing a bad service provider with a good one. No more - or no less - significant than changing an ISP. To get good accountability in this case you need quick and decisive action to replace an incompetent or rogue operator.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:42 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
hi,
I have responded. Several times I thought. Maybe you just did not like my epxlanation.
1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called nuclear process is the one to execute that process. It is a checks and balances sort of thing. You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude.
2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the same sort of full community review and support that transition requires. This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a regualr event in the current formulaton.
3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to easily slip under them. If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal
That is why I beleive it is not
Over-bureaucratization of this process
but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community due consideration.
avri
On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.
May I please have a response to this?
--MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
--- 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
-----Original Message----- From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de]
The second question - not independent from the operational related one - is then how to make this "new operator" accountable.
I believe we can rely on the contract, a more detailed SLA, the CSC and the review process (IFR).
Thanks Avri, this is a good summary. My comments are in line below:
1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called nuclear process is the one to execute that process. It is a checks and balances sort of thing. You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude.
Nuclear option or not (I take it as a significant change - and one that will have an impact on ICANN), the most important element is on the checks and balances. So I agree with Avri on the need for a different group for the process.
2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the same sort of full community review and support that transition requires. This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a regualr event in the current formulaton.
I'm less sure of a separate community-review step: if we have not managed to get this into the IFR step, then we need to. In my mind, the IFR recommendation itself should already have gone out to consultation and the decision to move should have been endorsed by the ccNSO and the RySG. The next step is then endorsing that decision, to agree and adopt the IFR recommendation. The decision to separate should be a community decision with a customer buy in, but that should be the final part of the IFR process. This should then be followed by a process for developing the RfP (not a trivial task) and one which needs to be based on customer requirements - I agree with Milton's assertions that the re-bid is of a service level contract (although I'm not convinced that there are enough independent experts out there with any realistic idea of how to run the IANA functions operator to make any correlation to changing an ISP a fair one). So the RfP needs to be based on clear requirements on SLAs/SLEs and on independence of the operator, its technical skills, ability and resources. We also
3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to easily slip under them. If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal
In the case of a (clear and supported) decision being made on the IFR recommendations, the RfP step does need to be engaged fairly quickly. If there are doubts about the well-found nature of the recommendation (for example, it failed to take account of key factors or was based on criteria that were not part of the agreed contract), those should come out in the adoption process via community comments.
That is why I beleive it is not Over-bureaucratization of this process but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community due consideration.
I think the key thing is on endorsement (or rejection) by the community of the IFR recommendation. I'm not sure that that needs the additional step you propose - once the recommendation is seen to have significant support (particularly at the customer level), it becomes important to reduce the period of uncertainty. Martin On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.
May I please have a response to this?
--MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
--- 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 sincerely appreciate all of the thought and discussion that has been happening on this over the last several days. Personally I am thinking that the best way to do a separation review would be to use the IFRT rather than creating a new review team with all the complexities and time that would introduce. I think though that the IFRT would need to include a larger (although not majority) presence of ccTLD and gTLD registries so that there is strong involvement of those who would be directly impacted by a separation while at the same time ensuring broad community participation. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 6:29 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Thanks Avri, this is a good summary. My comments are in line below:
1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called nuclear process is the one to execute that process. It is a checks and balances sort of thing. You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude.
Nuclear option or not (I take it as a significant change - and one that will have an impact on ICANN), the most important element is on the checks and balances. So I agree with Avri on the need for a different group for the process.
2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the same sort of full community review and support that transition requires. This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a regualr event in the current formulaton.
I'm less sure of a separate community-review step: if we have not managed to get this into the IFR step, then we need to. In my mind, the IFR recommendation itself should already have gone out to consultation and the decision to move should have been endorsed by the ccNSO and the RySG. The next step is then endorsing that decision, to agree and adopt the IFR recommendation. The decision to separate should be a community decision with a customer buy in, but that should be the final part of the IFR process. This should then be followed by a process for developing the RfP (not a trivial task) and one which needs to be based on customer requirements - I agree with Milton's assertions that the re-bid is of a service level contract (although I'm not convinced that there are enough independent experts out there with any realistic idea of how to run the IANA functions operator to make any correlation to changing an ISP a fair one). So the RfP needs to be based on clear requirements on SLAs/SLEs and on independence of the operator, its technical skills, ability and resources. We also
3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to easily slip under them. If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal
In the case of a (clear and supported) decision being made on the IFR recommendations, the RfP step does need to be engaged fairly quickly. If there are doubts about the well-found nature of the recommendation (for example, it failed to take account of key factors or was based on criteria that were not part of the agreed contract), those should come out in the adoption process via community comments.
That is why I beleive it is not Over-bureaucratization of this process but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community due consideration.
I think the key thing is on endorsement (or rejection) by the community of the IFR recommendation. I'm not sure that that needs the additional step you propose - once the recommendation is seen to have significant support (particularly at the customer level), it becomes important to reduce the period of uncertainty. Martin On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.
May I please have a response to this?
--MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
--- 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
Chuck, Are you suggesting that we have a standing review team for the IANA functions? I thought we'd agreed that it would be convened for the review (regular or special), rather than becoming a permanent entity (but then I might have missed something). Martin -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 18 May 2015 12:40 To: Martin Boyle; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process I sincerely appreciate all of the thought and discussion that has been happening on this over the last several days. Personally I am thinking that the best way to do a separation review would be to use the IFRT rather than creating a new review team with all the complexities and time that would introduce. I think though that the IFRT would need to include a larger (although not majority) presence of ccTLD and gTLD registries so that there is strong involvement of those who would be directly impacted by a separation while at the same time ensuring broad community participation. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 6:29 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Thanks Avri, this is a good summary. My comments are in line below:
1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called nuclear process is the one to execute that process. It is a checks and balances sort of thing. You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude.
Nuclear option or not (I take it as a significant change - and one that will have an impact on ICANN), the most important element is on the checks and balances. So I agree with Avri on the need for a different group for the process.
2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the same sort of full community review and support that transition requires. This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a regualr event in the current formulaton.
I'm less sure of a separate community-review step: if we have not managed to get this into the IFR step, then we need to. In my mind, the IFR recommendation itself should already have gone out to consultation and the decision to move should have been endorsed by the ccNSO and the RySG. The next step is then endorsing that decision, to agree and adopt the IFR recommendation. The decision to separate should be a community decision with a customer buy in, but that should be the final part of the IFR process. This should then be followed by a process for developing the RfP (not a trivial task) and one which needs to be based on customer requirements - I agree with Milton's assertions that the re-bid is of a service level contract (although I'm not convinced that there are enough independent experts out there with any realistic idea of how to run the IANA functions operator to make any correlation to changing an ISP a fair one). So the RfP needs to be based on clear requirements on SLAs/SLEs and on independence of the operator, its technical skills, ability and resources. We also
3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to easily slip under them. If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal
In the case of a (clear and supported) decision being made on the IFR recommendations, the RfP step does need to be engaged fairly quickly. If there are doubts about the well-found nature of the recommendation (for example, it failed to take account of key factors or was based on criteria that were not part of the agreed contract), those should come out in the adoption process via community comments.
That is why I beleive it is not Over-bureaucratization of this process but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community due consideration.
I think the key thing is on endorsement (or rejection) by the community of the IFR recommendation. I'm not sure that that needs the additional step you propose - once the recommendation is seen to have significant support (particularly at the customer level), it becomes important to reduce the period of uncertainty. Martin On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.
May I please have a response to this?
--MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
--- 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
Definitely not Martin. I do not support a permanent entity; it should only be convened as needed and it should be clearly defined in advance so that it doesn't take too much time to convene. If a separation review is needed, it would be covered under the provision for a Special Review in contrast to the periodic reviews. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 7:48 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Chuck, Are you suggesting that we have a standing review team for the IANA functions? I thought we'd agreed that it would be convened for the review (regular or special), rather than becoming a permanent entity (but then I might have missed something). Martin -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 18 May 2015 12:40 To: Martin Boyle; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process I sincerely appreciate all of the thought and discussion that has been happening on this over the last several days. Personally I am thinking that the best way to do a separation review would be to use the IFRT rather than creating a new review team with all the complexities and time that would introduce. I think though that the IFRT would need to include a larger (although not majority) presence of ccTLD and gTLD registries so that there is strong involvement of those who would be directly impacted by a separation while at the same time ensuring broad community participation. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 6:29 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Thanks Avri, this is a good summary. My comments are in line below:
1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called nuclear process is the one to execute that process. It is a checks and balances sort of thing. You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude.
Nuclear option or not (I take it as a significant change - and one that will have an impact on ICANN), the most important element is on the checks and balances. So I agree with Avri on the need for a different group for the process.
2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the same sort of full community review and support that transition requires. This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a regualr event in the current formulaton.
I'm less sure of a separate community-review step: if we have not managed to get this into the IFR step, then we need to. In my mind, the IFR recommendation itself should already have gone out to consultation and the decision to move should have been endorsed by the ccNSO and the RySG. The next step is then endorsing that decision, to agree and adopt the IFR recommendation. The decision to separate should be a community decision with a customer buy in, but that should be the final part of the IFR process. This should then be followed by a process for developing the RfP (not a trivial task) and one which needs to be based on customer requirements - I agree with Milton's assertions that the re-bid is of a service level contract (although I'm not convinced that there are enough independent experts out there with any realistic idea of how to run the IANA functions operator to make any correlation to changing an ISP a fair one). So the RfP needs to be based on clear requirements on SLAs/SLEs and on independence of the operator, its technical skills, ability and resources. We also
3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to easily slip under them. If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal
In the case of a (clear and supported) decision being made on the IFR recommendations, the RfP step does need to be engaged fairly quickly. If there are doubts about the well-found nature of the recommendation (for example, it failed to take account of key factors or was based on criteria that were not part of the agreed contract), those should come out in the adoption process via community comments.
That is why I beleive it is not Over-bureaucratization of this process but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community due consideration.
I think the key thing is on endorsement (or rejection) by the community of the IFR recommendation. I'm not sure that that needs the additional step you propose - once the recommendation is seen to have significant support (particularly at the customer level), it becomes important to reduce the period of uncertainty. Martin On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.
May I please have a response to this?
--MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
--- 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
+1 on the use of IFRT since the way i understand it, separation process only kicks in after IFRT has determined and recommended to ICANN board the in-ability to continue with PTI as the IFO. That said, i don't get the rationale behind making IFRT to be largely composed of ccTLD and gTLD registries. My understanding is that IFRT is supposed to be MS based and so there should be some balance and its also supposed to be a small as much as possible. I don't think we need more registry representation within IFRT before it can determine that CSC's (which is largely registries) report warrant calling for an RFP or otherwise. We need to ensure that IFRT is truly MS in nature! Regards On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I sincerely appreciate all of the thought and discussion that has been happening on this over the last several days. Personally I am thinking that the best way to do a separation review would be to use the IFRT rather than creating a new review team with all the complexities and time that would introduce. I think though that the IFRT would need to include a larger (although not majority) presence of ccTLD and gTLD registries so that there is strong involvement of those who would be directly impacted by a separation while at the same time ensuring broad community participation.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 6:29 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Thanks Avri, this is a good summary. My comments are in line below:
1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called nuclear process is the one to execute that process. It is a checks and balances sort of thing. You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude.
Nuclear option or not (I take it as a significant change - and one that will have an impact on ICANN), the most important element is on the checks and balances. So I agree with Avri on the need for a different group for the process.
2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the same sort of full community review and support that transition requires. This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a regualr event in the current formulaton.
I'm less sure of a separate community-review step: if we have not managed to get this into the IFR step, then we need to. In my mind, the IFR recommendation itself should already have gone out to consultation and the decision to move should have been endorsed by the ccNSO and the RySG. The next step is then endorsing that decision, to agree and adopt the IFR recommendation. The decision to separate should be a community decision with a customer buy in, but that should be the final part of the IFR process.
This should then be followed by a process for developing the RfP (not a trivial task) and one which needs to be based on customer requirements - I agree with Milton's assertions that the re-bid is of a service level contract (although I'm not convinced that there are enough independent experts out there with any realistic idea of how to run the IANA functions operator to make any correlation to changing an ISP a fair one). So the RfP needs to be based on clear requirements on SLAs/SLEs and on independence of the operator, its technical skills, ability and resources. We also
3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to easily slip under them. If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal
In the case of a (clear and supported) decision being made on the IFR recommendations, the RfP step does need to be engaged fairly quickly. If there are doubts about the well-found nature of the recommendation (for example, it failed to take account of key factors or was based on criteria that were not part of the agreed contract), those should come out in the adoption process via community comments.
That is why I beleive it is not Over-bureaucratization of this process but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community due consideration.
I think the key thing is on endorsement (or rejection) by the community of the IFR recommendation. I'm not sure that that needs the additional step you propose - once the recommendation is seen to have significant support (particularly at the customer level), it becomes important to reduce the period of uncertainty.
Martin
On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.
May I please have a response to this?
--MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
--- 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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 !
Seun, I did not say that IFRT should be largely composed of ccTLD and gTLD registries. I simply said that the IFRT composition should have stronger participation of ccTLD and gTLD registries than is proposed currently. If the IFRT is doing a separation review, it is more important than ever for there to be strong direct customer participation. I fully agree that IFRT must be M-S. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 8:13 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Martin Boyle; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process +1 on the use of IFRT since the way i understand it, separation process only kicks in after IFRT has determined and recommended to ICANN board the in-ability to continue with PTI as the IFO. That said, i don't get the rationale behind making IFRT to be largely composed of ccTLD and gTLD registries. My understanding is that IFRT is supposed to be MS based and so there should be some balance and its also supposed to be a small as much as possible. I don't think we need more registry representation within IFRT before it can determine that CSC's (which is largely registries) report warrant calling for an RFP or otherwise. We need to ensure that IFRT is truly MS in nature! Regards On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I sincerely appreciate all of the thought and discussion that has been happening on this over the last several days. Personally I am thinking that the best way to do a separation review would be to use the IFRT rather than creating a new review team with all the complexities and time that would introduce. I think though that the IFRT would need to include a larger (although not majority) presence of ccTLD and gTLD registries so that there is strong involvement of those who would be directly impacted by a separation while at the same time ensuring broad community participation. 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 Martin Boyle Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 6:29 AM To: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Thanks Avri, this is a good summary. My comments are in line below:
1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called nuclear process is the one to execute that process. It is a checks and balances sort of thing. You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude.
Nuclear option or not (I take it as a significant change - and one that will have an impact on ICANN), the most important element is on the checks and balances. So I agree with Avri on the need for a different group for the process.
2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the same sort of full community review and support that transition requires. This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a regualr event in the current formulaton.
I'm less sure of a separate community-review step: if we have not managed to get this into the IFR step, then we need to. In my mind, the IFR recommendation itself should already have gone out to consultation and the decision to move should have been endorsed by the ccNSO and the RySG. The next step is then endorsing that decision, to agree and adopt the IFR recommendation. The decision to separate should be a community decision with a customer buy in, but that should be the final part of the IFR process. This should then be followed by a process for developing the RfP (not a trivial task) and one which needs to be based on customer requirements - I agree with Milton's assertions that the re-bid is of a service level contract (although I'm not convinced that there are enough independent experts out there with any realistic idea of how to run the IANA functions operator to make any correlation to changing an ISP a fair one). So the RfP needs to be based on clear requirements on SLAs/SLEs and on independence of the operator, its technical skills, ability and resources. We also
3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to easily slip under them. If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal
In the case of a (clear and supported) decision being made on the IFR recommendations, the RfP step does need to be engaged fairly quickly. If there are doubts about the well-found nature of the recommendation (for example, it failed to take account of key factors or was based on criteria that were not part of the agreed contract), those should come out in the adoption process via community comments.
That is why I beleive it is not Over-bureaucratization of this process but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community due consideration.
I think the key thing is on endorsement (or rejection) by the community of the IFR recommendation. I'm not sure that that needs the additional step you propose - once the recommendation is seen to have significant support (particularly at the customer level), it becomes important to reduce the period of uncertainty. Martin On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.
May I please have a response to this?
--MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Dear Chuck, On 18/05/2015 14:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I did not say that IFRT should be largely composed of ccTLD and gTLD registries. I simply said that the IFRT composition should have stronger participation of ccTLD and gTLD registries than is proposed currently. If the IFRT is doing a separation review, it is more important than ever for there to be strong direct customer participation. I fully agree that IFRT must be M-S.
I cringe at this. If the decision for separation is to be decided by the IRFT then it will need to be accepted by all SOs & ACs & the group needs to be multistakeholder. The CSC is already Registry-led, and quite rightly so. Separation does not solely affect direct customers. It is such a large step, it affects everyone. Kindest regards, Olivier
Olivier, everything affects everyone, in some way or another. But the strength and directness of the effects vary greatly. Do you deny that IANA performance affects registry operators more directly, and more materially, than it affects anyone else? If it is appropriate for the CSC to be registry-led, why is it not also appropriate for a separation process to have strong direct customer participation? Chuck is not even demanding majority on this entity, just stronger than proposed. Another issue you may not be attuned to is the possibility of political games being played. Though I agree that the IFR needs to be rooted in the broader MS ICANN community, I also recognize that the broader the representation on a committee is, the easier it is for its agenda to stray into areas not directly related to IANA performance. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 10:44 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Seun Ojedeji Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Dear Chuck, On 18/05/2015 14:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote: I did not say that IFRT should be largely composed of ccTLD and gTLD registries. I simply said that the IFRT composition should have stronger participation of ccTLD and gTLD registries than is proposed currently. If the IFRT is doing a separation review, it is more important than ever for there to be strong direct customer participation. I fully agree that IFRT must be M-S. I cringe at this. If the decision for separation is to be decided by the IRFT then it will need to be accepted by all SOs & ACs & the group needs to be multistakeholder. The CSC is already Registry-led, and quite rightly so. Separation does not solely affect direct customers. It is such a large step, it affects everyone. Kindest regards, Olivier
Dear Milton, sadly, I see that we have diametrically opposed views of the potential for politics of a multistakeholder model. It has been shown time and time again, in the real world, that concentration of powers breeds lack of accountability and an increased risk for misuse of such powers. A more balanced group restores internal checks and balances that makes the work of the group more objective. Simply said, it's the difference between an authoritarian regime vs. a democracy. Spread the responsibility/roles and you'll have better accountability. Kindest regards, Olivier On 18/05/2015 17:02, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Olivier, everything affects everyone, in some way or another. But the strength and directness of the effects vary greatly. Do you deny that IANA performance affects registry operators more directly, and more materially, than it affects anyone else? If it is appropriate for the CSC to be registry-led, why is it not also appropriate for a separation process to have strong direct customer participation? Chuck is not even demanding majority on this entity, just stronger than proposed.
Another issue you may not be attuned to is the possibility of political games being played. Though I agree that the IFR needs to be rooted in the broader MS ICANN community, I also recognize that the broader the representation on a committee is, the easier it is for its agenda to stray into areas not directly related to IANA performance.
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2015 10:44 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Seun Ojedeji *Cc:* avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Dear Chuck,
On 18/05/2015 14:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I did not say that IFRT should be largely composed of ccTLD and gTLD registries. I simply said that the IFRT composition should have stronger participation of ccTLD and gTLD registries than is proposed currently. If the IFRT is doing a separation review, it is more important than ever for there to be strong direct customer participation. I fully agree that IFRT must be M-S.
I cringe at this. If the decision for separation is to be decided by the IRFT then it will need to be accepted by all SOs & ACs & the group needs to be multistakeholder. The CSC is already Registry-led, and quite rightly so. Separation does not solely affect direct customers. It is such a large step, it affects everyone. Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
What are you cringing at Olivier? The separation review would be done by the IFRT with full community involvement. The IFRT would not be led or controlled by registries; they would just have a significant role. I will say it again: the IFRT is M-S. Chuck From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 10:44 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Seun Ojedeji Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Dear Chuck, On 18/05/2015 14:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote: I did not say that IFRT should be largely composed of ccTLD and gTLD registries. I simply said that the IFRT composition should have stronger participation of ccTLD and gTLD registries than is proposed currently. If the IFRT is doing a separation review, it is more important than ever for there to be strong direct customer participation. I fully agree that IFRT must be M-S. I cringe at this. If the decision for separation is to be decided by the IRFT then it will need to be accepted by all SOs & ACs & the group needs to be multistakeholder. The CSC is already Registry-led, and quite rightly so. Separation does not solely affect direct customers. It is such a large step, it affects everyone. Kindest regards, Olivier
Dear Chuck, an IFRT with Registries having a significant role would be, in my opinion, an unbalanced group - and it is precisely when a group is unbalanced that it then risks being used for lobbying, influence and purposes other than one that is balanced where everyone has the ability to restore balance. The ATRT is multistakeholder group. As a result, it is not political. I see the IFRT as something similar, for IANA. That's where the multistakeholder balance need to be. Kindest regards, Olivier On 18/05/2015 17:07, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
What are you cringing at Olivier? The separation review would be done by the IFRT with full community involvement. The IFRT would not be led or controlled by registries; they would just have a significant role. I will say it again: the IFRT is M-S.
Chuck
*From:*Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2015 10:44 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Seun Ojedeji *Cc:* avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Dear Chuck,
On 18/05/2015 14:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I did not say that IFRT should be largely composed of ccTLD and gTLD registries. I simply said that the IFRT composition should have stronger participation of ccTLD and gTLD registries than is proposed currently. If the IFRT is doing a separation review, it is more important than ever for there to be strong direct customer participation. I fully agree that IFRT must be M-S.
I cringe at this. If the decision for separation is to be decided by the IRFT then it will need to be accepted by all SOs & ACs & the group needs to be multistakeholder. The CSC is already Registry-led, and quite rightly so. Separation does not solely affect direct customers. It is such a large step, it affects everyone. Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Good evening: Thankyou Olivier. I would not cringe. 1. The CWG draft report is in public consultation. May I suggest that the public outside CWG might be rather confused to find that aspects of the agreed draft were still under discussion at this stage. How about a 'trève' until the public consultation is concluded? All interested parties may contribute to the public consultation meanwhile. 2. The global multistakeholder model means what it says. It is absolutely essential that existing and prospective entities respect that principle. Internet users and governments are major stakeholders in all aspects of IANA and ICANN, in addition to the operational communities. 3. Chuck: Although I value your personal commitment and contributions, I think you should take advice from Verisign's corporate lawyers on the anti-trust aspects of this affair. From my perspective it is quite unusual for the dominant operator and principal (remaining) contractor to play such a leading role in designing the future regulatory system. Regards CW PS: Regarding the CWG relations with IANA and the RIRs, please see the comments from RIPE and Brian Carpenter. On 18 May 2015, at 16:43, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Chuck,
On 18/05/2015 14:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I did not say that IFRT should be largely composed of ccTLD and gTLD registries. I simply said that the IFRT composition should have stronger participation of ccTLD and gTLD registries than is proposed currently. If the IFRT is doing a separation review, it is more important than ever for there to be strong direct customer participation. I fully agree that IFRT must be M-S.
I cringe at this. If the decision for separation is to be decided by the IRFT then it will need to be accepted by all SOs & ACs & the group needs to be multistakeholder. The CSC is already Registry-led, and quite rightly so. Separation does not solely affect direct customers. It is such a large step, it affects everyone. Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-----Original Message-----
Personally I am thinking that the best way to do a separation review would be to use the IFRT rather than creating a new review team with all the complexities and time that would introduce.
Thanks, good to see some common sense entering into this discussion.
I think though that the IFRT would need to include a larger (although not majority) presence of ccTLD and gTLD registries so that there is strong involvement of those who would be directly impacted by a separation while at the same time ensuring broad community participation.
I see no reason to object to this; again, common sense to ensure that directly impacted users of the names-related IANA functions are well-represented.
Hi, Further thoughts on this point. On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator
It is true, the Stewardship for Names will remain with ICANN and the Stewardship for the others will remian with those operational communities. IANA, however, which is still the ultimate root of the Internet for Names, Numbers and Protocols, is still a critical entity. I know that I am perhaps in a minority that values the unity of IANA, nonetheless, I think that moving the function away from the current IANA group, moving any of the functions away from the current group, is something that we must attempt to avoid and must do with the greatest of care if necessary to do so. So if it became time to move the IFO function and possibly to split it, I think that calls for an all hands on deck community action. I personally believe that should be the case if any of the operational communities come to the conclusion that it is time to to move their segment of the IFO, but I know that is not our concern. In this case, however, since ICANN would, under the current assumption, be the service provider for Numbers and Protocols, and the parent company for the affiliate or subsidiary serving Names, it would only make sense to take this very seriously and not just as the act of finding a new technical service provider for the IFO. I think that is part of what would be required of us as the stewards for the root of the Internet. That is part of why I think it is a very serious community process and not just the search for a new technical provider. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
TGNIITS (The Great New IANA in the Sky). MM: ;-) I prefer TAPBI, The Always Possibly Better IANA I do not know the implication of the RIRs moving to TGNIITS. We still have the ASO in ICANN, and they still in theory recommend address policy to the ICANN Board. MM: That is correct. What adds the second N to ICANN is not its performance of the number-related IANA functions, which is a pretty mundane bookkeeping function, but its position as the seat of the ASO and as a higher-level oversight entity that recognizes the RIRs as the legitimate representatives of the numbering community in order to constitute the ASO. It is less clear whether the RIR agreement with TGNIITS requires them to abide by ICANN directives related to addresses. MM: Take a look at the ASO-ICANN MoU https://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm This MoU is established for the purposes of: * defining roles and processes supporting global policy development, including the relationship between the Internet addressing community (represented by the NRO) and ICANN within the operation of this process; * defining mechanisms for the provision of recommendations to the Board of ICANN concerning the recognition of new RIRs; and * defining accessible, open, transparent and documented procedures for the selection of individuals to serve on other ICANN bodies, including selection of Directors of ICANN and selection of members of various standing committees and ad hoc ICANN bodies.
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
CW Lists -
Gomes, Chuck -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji -
WUKnoben