[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

Mon Aug 17 16:25:36 UTC 2015

Hi Kavouss,

I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please?  Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below.

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.  

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.

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’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator."

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’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS."

Can I ask the secretariat to prepare the other FAQs for posting while we work to close on this one (given the comment period is nearly half over. and we have good agreement on the others).  I would suggest we reorder the FAQs a bit to put these questions related to the proposal at the beginning and leave the others which largely address questions about the ICG or the process to the subsequent sections.  You could repurpose section VII (make it section I) and edit it to read "About the ICG combined proposal" and under that include questions, 12 and 19, and these new questions. 

For ease of ICG members, those questions/sections are as follows:

Q12: Have the ICG identified any issues after the individual and collective proposals assessment?

Section VII. About ICG combined proposal and public comment period
Q19.  How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like?

Jennifer, if you need anything else from me, just let me know.  We will get the final question to you ASAP.

Many thanks to all,

Lynn

On Aug 16, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Lynn
> Tjhhank you very much for the efforts .
> However, the last sentence
> Quote
> 
> " The three Operating Communities (OC’s) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator."
> Unquote
> This does not reflect the reality. Infact there are other instants ( entities ) to take that responsibilty and not three community as such.
> Pls once again either take the text from the final proposal from CWG REGARDING THE pti, IFO, CSC AND IPR OR DELETE THAT PART .
> iT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO ESTABLISH A NEW RESPSPONSIBILTY FOR 3OCs , in particular, NUMBERS Protocol& Parameter..
> Moreover, it is oputside the ICG responsibiléity to make such statement.
> I have not read the rest of the doc. and may come back,should I find some thing to clarify
> Regards
> Kavouss
> p
> 
> 
> 2015-08-16 16:23 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>  Dear Lynn
> Tjhhank you very much for the efforts .
> However, the last sentence
> Quote
> 
> The three Operating Communities (OC’s) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator.
> 
> 2015-08-15 17:32 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
> Dear All
> Sorry to be late
> The answer to the question relating  to PTI to be found on the first proposal of  CWG as was put yo public comment.
> Nothing more and nothing less
> Kavousd
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On 15 Aug 2015, at 14:39, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agree.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:19 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> >>
> >> Many thanks Lynn and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this ..
> >> Apologies for not being able to participate earlier ..
> >> I'm fine with this version ..
> >>
> >> Kind Regards
> >> --Manal
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> >> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 4:03 AM
> >> To: Drazek, Keith
> >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
> >>
> >> Thanks Keith,
> >>
> >> any comments on the other FAQ?
> >>
> >> Lynn
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:49 PM, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I support Milton's proposed edit.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Keith Drazek
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Looks OK to me.
> >>>> If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th question as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>> Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN.
> >>>>
> >>>> Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN when the transition is complete.
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
> >>>>> Of Lynn St.Amour
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM
> >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
> >>>>> Importance: High
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear ICG members,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs.  In the
> >>>>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one
> >>>>> remaining area needing review.   The response to the question:  "How is PTI
> >>>>> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the
> >>>>> naming functions while not making that explicit.  I added a few
> >>>>> lines to try and clarify that (virtually all from the various
> >>>>> proposals) and to include all the OC proposals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I
> >>>>> will work with the secretariat to get these posted.  Hopefully very soon, given the>> comment period is well underway.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also posted to Dropbox
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Lynn
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Internal-cg mailing list
> >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 