[Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role

[Martin Boyle]

Dear Kavouss,

I think all the information is in the document I referenced earlier in the definitions of roles – I think reference here would be better than me trying to paraphrase some fairly careful wording.

For the remnant role of NTIA – I am not sure I know what you are getting at.  My understanding was that NTIA is looking to transfer all its stewardship role, so that would mean none, wouldn’t it?  Or am I missing something?

I guess you might be referring to NTIA’s separate contract with VeriSign for the root-zone maintainer function.  This is specifically excluded in the NTIA’s March 2014 announcement, which notes that this would be subject to a separate process.

But if I’m missing your concern, please have another go at me.

Martin


From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Sent: 23 April 2015 15:20
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: ICG Call: NTIA Role

Dear Martin
You did stated that ICANN assumes NTIA stewardship .At the sane time you stated that CSC will perform operational functions of NTIA.
May you pls explain the repartition tasks of NTIA stewardship  between ICANN and CSC i.e. Since operational tasks of NTIAx will be performed by CSC then what will be performed by ICANN and what will remain to be performed by by ,NTIA non transferred
Regards
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Apr 2015, at 12:51, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,

As in my earlier mail to the list today, the draft for comments has been published so it is out of our hands to make wording changes now – we need a stable document for consultation to be fair to everyone now working on their analysis and comments.  However, I think that section III.A, The elements of this proposal, on pp 18 onwards has to be seen in its entirety as it goes over the different elements of the model and the relationship between them.

I perhaps should have mentioned yesterday that the names of the different elements have changed in drafts from those given in the chart I used to talk us through the document.  In the consultation draft, “periodic review function” or PRF on the chart became the “IANA function review” or IFR:  while the proposal is for the reviews to take place every five years, it is possible for a special review to be set up, so the term periodic does not quite match with the proposal.  Otherwise I think I did manage to keep to current terminology.

Best


Martin

From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Sent: 22 April 2015 19:02
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: ICG Call: NTIA Role

Dear Martin,
Tks for explanation
The first part of the message " In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI " is not clearly mentioned in CWG where as it was especifically mentioned in Legal  Memo dated 04 April as I did cite in previous message .
For the rest I have the same understanding as your
 Consequently, the part that ICANN WILL PERFORM THE CURRENT ROLE OF NTIA needs to be mentioned at the beginning of the CSC paragraph e.g.
While ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANNm, CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract.
This paraphrasing is necessary to avoid misinterpreting the Roles of icann AND THE rOLE of CSC.
It is always good to talk with Professional that nicely, quietly and respectfully provide the clarification.
Aggressive Approach does not work at least with me.
I have never ever yeilded to any pressure at all and will not do it
Tks again it was a kind and helpful clarification.
Regards
Kavouss .

2015-04-22 19:01 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>>:
Hi Kavouss,

There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this.

The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went to consultation in December.  I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate and re-tender.

One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability – a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the role of IANA functions operator.  The contract approach allows the role to be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet obligations and failing to remedy the failings.

In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANN.

The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract.  Its role is quite limited in that it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed.  The CSC does not make the decision on the future of the contract.

For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend:
•             Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to the registries;
•             Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the registries;
•             Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level agreements and other operational conditions;  and
•             Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change.
(I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive list.  There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.)
However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be implemented.

Hope this helps

Martin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150423/ffaa891d/attachment.html>