[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

Sat Aug 22 08:27:00 UTC 2015

Dear All
It is a pity that even at the level of ICG there is several understanding of what PTI means bad cover I was not an ICG Liaison ti CWG but actively followed the discussions.
In view of the fact that PTI was designed to address accountability and oversight if transition mainly fir names we could  not  put Numbers and  Protocols  at the level and  the authority as that of Names.
I know all IETF and CRISP wish to do so but it is inappropriate
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Aug 2015, at 23:57, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Milton.
> 
> Are you saying that CSC is independent of ICANN?  Is CSC not constituted by the ICANN -Policy (drawn from SOs/ACs) as an oversight mechanism similar to IETF or the RIRs oversight? 
> Is PTI not providing service to ICANN POLICY based on a legal contract? Would CSC oversight not be included in that contract? Who would evaluate the performance of this contract?
> Would ICANN-POLICY  as the sole owner of PTI not have the powers to sack PTI as IFO for IANA function for the names only, including appointing another service provider? Just like the IETF-AIB and the RIRs can walk away if not satisfied  with their  IFOs, in this case, ICANN?
> 
> Is NTIA intending to hand over its  IANA function oversight to CSC?
> 
> Thank you
>  
> Mary Uduma
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, August 21, 2015 5:33 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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> 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
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150822/cbf87729/attachment.html>