[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
joseph alhadeff
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Fri Aug 21 11:48:11 UTC 2015
Kavouss:
No question on the need for accuracy, but I wanted to underline the
urgency of concluding this process in a timely manner during the
consultation period when it will be of great use.
Joe
On 8/21/2015 7:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Joe
> Yes , but we shall avoid misleading the community by putting Number
> and Protocol communities which nay or may not have contract with PTI
> at the same level of CSC which usa. Integral part of Name community in
> monitoring the performance of IFO
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 21 Aug 2015, at 13:32, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>> Colleagues
>>
>> If we, who have been so involved in this process, are having these
>> definitional issues I can only presume the potential difficulties for
>> the non-initiate... Let us resolve these issues as soon as possible
>> as it seems the FAQs may be very important to those reviewing the
>> proposal. In the interest of utility let us work to assure that the
>> perfect does not become the enemy of the good.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:apb at cequrux.com>>
>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/d3667fd9/attachment.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list