[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

Fri Aug 21 16:32:44 UTC 2015

Mary,
I would not support the first part of your modification (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)

This makes it sound as if ICANN is overseeing itself, when in fact CSC and the IANA Functions Review are meant to be independent of ICANN.,
ICANN is the ‘owner’ or ‘controller’ of PTI, even though it is legally separated. Of course as the owner or controller of PTI, ICANN the corporation will oversee and be responsible for PTI’s performance, but it is really the names operational community that has primary responsibility for evaluating and monitoring PTI’s performance.

--MM

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 10:23 AM
To: joseph alhadeff; Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

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<mailto: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<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

_______________________________________________
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/20150821/1f8abce1/attachment.html>