[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Daar Martin
Welcome back to the discussion
Thank you for yr comprehensive comments. However,there is considerable difference between the Name Community and the two other communities.
The responsibility if the name community would be reflected in the revised Bylaws whereas the task of the two other communities are addressed in their contracts or SLAs with ICANN.
There is major difference between the scope, value and weighting of Bylaws provisions and those of bilateral agreement or contracts between the latter communities and ICANN which are limited ti the parties of SLAs and / or Contracts
These legal differences must be reflected in the text in order to avoid comparing unequal circumstances.
Until such differences in discharging responsibilities are not appropriately reflected, I maintain my concerns/ objection to the current text   
Regards  
Kavouss


Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Aug 2015, at 10:41, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kavouss,
>  
> I’m trying to catch up following a long weekend away, so I might be missing a bit in this.  However, it does seem to me that all of the OCs have mandates to monitor and oversee the IFO whether directly or indirectly.
>  
> Names:  the CSC monitors the PTI directly and can seek to resolve issues with PTI or with the ICANN Board or, if this fails to bring improvements, escalate for a decision on launching an IANA Functions Review.
>  
> Numbers:  their relationship is with ICANN and is contractual.  Paragraphs 2075-2077 (contract), 2085-2088 (SLA) and 2089 (SLA principles, which includes review of the IANA operations, and failure to perform).
>  
> Protocol Parameters:  according to paragraph 3063 (principles) there are requirements for openness, transparency, and accountability;  reference to Internet community agreements;  a requirement for “capable service;”  and IAB responsibility to define and manage the relationship with the operator.
>  
> Together it seems to me that all of the OCs have mandates to monitor and oversee the activities of the IFO.  What are we/am I missing?
>  
> Martin
>  
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
> Sent: 19 August 2015 22:31
> To: Mueller, Milton L
> Cc: ICG Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
>  
> Dear Milton
> Good to hear from you again Yes but other 
> OCs do not have any mandates monitor / oversight the activities of IFO
> Regards
> Kaviyss 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 19 Aug 2015, at 23:02, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> Kavouss:
> I think Lynn, like me, is considering the CSC as part of the names operational community.
>  
> --MM
>  
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:47 PM
> To: Russ Housley
> Cc: ICG Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
>  
> Dear Lynn
> I do not know from where you have in ferred that  "The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO"  
> 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.
> We should not invent new ideas.
> However,,OCs may, coomment on the performance of IFO in regard with their area of responsibilties and bring the matter to the attention of CSC.
> 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.
> Regards
> Kavouss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150820/b29a25eb/attachment.html>