[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

Mary Uduma mnuduma at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 21 14:22:59 UTC 2015


All,
I wish to support Alan's formulation with few addition to bring further clarity to the message  ICG is trying to convey as show below in capital. 


Q: How will performance be evaluated?
 
 A: IT IS EXPECTED THAT ICANN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING PTI'S PERFORMANCE   AS THE IFO FOR THE NAMING COMMUNITY (FUNCTION), THROUGH THE PROPOSED CSC, ETC.  WHILE The OTHER TWO Operating Communities (OCs) WOULD BE  responsible for
 evaluating the performance OF ICANN AS THEIR IFO FOR THEIR parts of the IANA functions,
 IT IS LEFT TO EACH OPERATING COMMUNITY TO MAKE  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.
Mary Uduma

  


     On Friday, August 21, 2015 12:48 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
   

  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> 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> 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>:
 
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
   
  
    
 
 _______________________________________________
 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/20150821/4d1d2f2f/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list