<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Lynn</div><div>I do not know from where you have in ferred that "<font color="#500050"><em><strong>The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO" </strong></em></font></div><div><font color="#500050">Please read carefully The Final Proposal from CWG ,PARGRAPH 105, Bullet 3 and PARAGRAPH 106, SUB PARA. 4, in which the CSC is / will be responsible to monitor the performance of IFO.Please also read Annex G , Charter of CSC.</font></div><div><font color="#500050">We should not invent new ideas.</font></div><div><font color="#500050">However,,OCs may, coomment on the performance of IFO in regard with their area of responsibilties and bring the matter to the attention of C</font><font color="#500050">SC.</font></div><div><font color="#500050">The text you have proposed is inconsistent with those referred to above.and thus I am not comfortable to that and in fact object to any kind of paraphrasing the CWG text.</font></div><div><font color="#500050">Regards</font></div><div><font color="#500050">Kavouss </font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-08-19 19:25 GMT+02:00 Russ Housley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:housley@vigilsec.com" target="_blank">housley@vigilsec.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Lynn:<br>
<span><br>
> The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the(ir) IFO (through various community managed oversight mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.<br>
><br>
> It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark.<br>
><br>
> Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community\u2019s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator."<br>
><br>
> Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community\u2019s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS."<br>
<br>
</span>This looks fine to me. The protocol parameters community has an SLA, and the IANA Department publishes the measurements against that SLA every other month. The numbers community is negotiating a similar SLA, and that language for the SLA is out for comment right now <<a href="https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-the-second-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-services" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-the-second-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-services</a>>.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Russ<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org">Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>