[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

Thu Aug 20 14:31:57 UTC 2015

Dear Martin
Pls carefully read my last message.
I can understand theCSC approach as I have outlined.
The other communities may use whatever they wish but can not be seen as having the right identical to that of name community as they may or may not have contract with PTI
Tks
Regards
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Aug 2015, at 13:39, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Kavouss,
>  
> That’s helpful – if I understand you correctly, your concern seems to be that the different communities will use different mechanisms and that these mechanisms might produce different outcomes for similar circumstances:  is that right?  If so, I personally would find it useful to see examples of how you think that the different approaches would diverge.  This is important as we can’t (and shouldn’t) try to impose a common approach on the OCs.  We might need to go back to them if we conclude that the different approaches won’t work together, but I thought that our analysis so far was that the three proposals were different, but coherent.
>  
> In the case of significant issues with the IANA functions operator (initially PTI for names and ICANN for numbers and protocol parameters) there is one clear common mechanism:  that the IANA functions operator – initially the PTI – can lose its contract.  For names the community instructs ICANN to issue a RfP to replace PTI while the other communities that can re-tender their contract to move from ICANN to another operator.
>  
> Fundamental for the names community is that the framework is based in ICANN – which is where many of the interested parties meet.  That is not the case for the other two OCs.  I would not really expect all three to have the same approach because their communities are focussed elsewhere than ICANN.
>  
> You will recollect, though, that the initial model considered by the CWG followed the same approach as the other communities – of an independent organisation that let a contract to the IANA functions operator, and that this approach did not provide a basis for consensus, so was abandoned.
>  
> I guess that you are right, that in the names proposal, there is a community wider than just the direct customers.  However, the other OCs also have wider networks to ensure that additional accountability.
>  
> So for the moment I still think that the suggested re-wording from Lynn works reasonably well – at least I cannot see any big issues associated with it.
>  
> Best
>  
> Martin
>  
>  
>  
> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
> Sent: 20 August 2015 10:23
> To: Martin Boyle
> Cc: Mueller, Milton L; ICG Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
>  
> 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/20150820/26f94e5a/attachment.html>