[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

[Lynn St.Amour]

Thank you Kavouss, Milton, and Martin for the earlier exchanges.  Very helpful.  Alan, I think your reformulation adds a lot of clarity to the original question, and helps to clarify the respective roles of the 3 OCs. 

Kavouss, I hear your comment that bylaws are weightier than bilateral agreements or contracts with ICANN, and while not commenting on that directly, the fact remains that the Number and Protocol Parameter communities are responsible for determining where their IANA function needs will be implemented.  That really is the salient point, and the point I was trying to make (vs. focusing on the various review mechanisms of the IFO).  

Part of the difficulty in reflecting these roles is we talk of the IFO as though it was one homogenous function and it is not.  It may be helpful in some instances to refer to them as IFO - Names, IFO - Numbers, IFO Protocol Parameters, although that has it's own drawbacks.

In any case, can we all take one last review and try to close this in the next 24 hours (1800 UTC)?   If anyone believes this is still not clear enough, please suggest text.

Thanks to all in advance, and it would be helpful to hear from more ICG members (fresh eyes and all that).

Lynn


On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into
> a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below.
> 
> Lynn's question and answer:
> 
>> Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department?
>> 
>> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation).  They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI.  The PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its stewardship.
>> 
>> The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN sub-contract the registry functions to PTI.
>> 
>> 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=92s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS.
> 
> Alan Barrett's suggestion:
> 
> Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)?
> 
> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation).  They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions.  The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI.  The PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its stewardship.
> 
> Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA department within ICANN?
> 
> A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same work using the same resources as the current IANA department within ICANN.  The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of ICANN.
> 
> Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with PTI?
> 
> A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions.  The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow ICANN to sub-contract to PTI.
> 
> Q: How will performance be evaluated?
> 
> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, 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 part of the IANA functions.
> 
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org