[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Lynn
Thank you very much for the draft  which is mostly based on the compromise
  that I have suggested few days ago and finalized by You.
I have no further comments to make
YOU MAY GO AHEAD NOW
 Thanks to all those contributed to the final draft
Best Regards
Kavouss ,

2015-08-23 18:50 GMT+02:00 Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at lstamour.org>:

> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150823/5f4ae984/attachment.html>