[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

Lynn St.Amour Lynn at LStAmour.org
Sun Aug 23 16:50:43 UTC 2015


Hi Kavouss,

thank you.  I am trying to understand and find a middle ground. 

To summarize current state:

Current proposed text : 

Q: How will performance be evaluated?

A: 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."

I understand you to be suggesting the following text from your earlier message:

“ 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.”

I made a few edits - intent was only to clarify - not change…

Q: How will performance be evaluated?

A: The 3 OCs based on their mandates, responsibilities and roles, and their desired relationship with PTI whether a direct relationship (Names) or through contracts with ICANN (Number and Protocol Parameter communities) will be responsible for evaluating the performance of their respective IANA functions (through varying community managed monitoring mechanisms).  The 3 OCs will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through their community approved mechanisms for remedial actions, as appropriate to maintain 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.

If you can signal your support for this text, we can post the updated FAQ.

Thanks in advance,
Lynn


On Aug 23, 2015, at 6:13 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Lynn
> Thanks for further clarifications
> I have given my amendments to yr earlier text before which is a middle ground 
> Pls take it ad amendments to your last  text
> Regards
> Have a nice and pleasant week- end
> Kavouss
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 23 Aug 2015, at 04:54, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 




More information about the Internal-cg mailing list