[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

Fri Aug 21 08:45:20 UTC 2015

Hi Lynn

Re Your Questions and Comments

Here are my Reply
Question

 *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.*

Answer

My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to
the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI

For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat
them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of
responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR
MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs  or SLAs WITH  PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR
CONTRACT  through ICANN

Your explanation
My ANSWER

I suggest the following modifications

The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles
and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the
performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community
managed monitoring  mechanisms).  They will also be responsible for
ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate
mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate 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."

My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment
which I introduce it again

“ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their
Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate
Contracts between Number and Parameter communities  or through ICANN) will
be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO
functions (through various community managed monitoring  mechanisms).  They
will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought
back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate
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.”

Kavouss

2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>:

> Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions,
> is a pretty good solution.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150821/1d886c29/attachment.html>