[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

[Lynn St.Amour]

On Aug 22, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear aLAN,
> You stated that Quote
> 
> " 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"
> Unquote
> Pls clearly indicate from  which part of the proposal from CWG or ICG such the phrase "   including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions."
> This is not true
> Changing / choosing the IANA FUNCTION OPERATOR IS TO BE DONE THROUGH A SPECIFIC PROCEDURE AS CONTAINED IN cwgFINAL PROPOSAL
> I THREFORE DISAGREE WITH THIS PèORTION.

Hi Kavouss,

the CWG proposal only speaks to Names and can only speak for Names as the ICG and all the community long ago determined that the most appropriate way to manage this is through the 3 OCs.  

Much of the confusion seems to come from the less than precise terminology being used to describe what is in effect 3 separate IANA function implementation activities.  These implementation activities are performed today by one organization but may not be in the future.  When someone says IFO (or PTI) it is not clear whether they are referring to 1 - the PTI as the Naming functions IANA operator ONLY, or 2 - if they think this means the PTI is the IFO for all 3 OCs.   The Numbers and PP communities mean point 1 above and see the PTI as the IFO for Names (only), and they see ICANN as the IFO for Numbers and PP, hence the suggested text in the FAQ.  The fact that all 3 OC IFO's are to be housed within the PTI does not supersede each community's responsibility or rights over THEIR IFO.  Hence, each OC has the responsibility to choose/change THEIR IFO using their own procedures and do not expect to rely (or be held accountable to) the CWG processes.

Hope this helps clarify why I cannot agree with your statement above.   

Are we getting closer to closing on the FAQ text?

Lynn

PS. We should think about how we make these distinctions more clear - either through refining our terminology or better defining PTI.