[Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

[Keith Davidson]

I would like to think we can find a way to move forward as suggested by 
Alissa, but the issues I have is the level of change required to make 
the Names proposal acceptable, and whether the change required needs to 
be referred back to the CWG for them to achieve consensus on the changes 
firstly. Or alternatively does the ICG have the authority to make the 
changes without testing the consensus on the changes with the Names 
Community. Or alternately alternately, if ICG makes changes and there is 
no adverse reaction from our consultation process, that that provides a 
deemed consensus from the Names Community.

For what it is worth, I have 4 issues arising:

1. The Names Proposal is deficient in that it does not fully address the 
accountability requirements for a post-NTIA IANA, and the final 
recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability Working Group need to be 
incorporated into the final Names Proposal in order to address these 
deficiencies.

2. The wording in the Names Proposal concerning the Intellectual 
Property Rights over "IANA"  require redrafting. Since the current 
wording has unanimous agreement from the Names community, is it 
necessary to return the proposal to the CWG-IANA Working Group for their 
redrafting and re-development of consensus?

3. The Names Proposal contains a useful set of principles applicable to 
an intended "Service Level Expectation" for IANA and its customers. The 
final Service Level Expectations (SLE) are still being drafted. If there 
is agreement that the Names Proposal requires redrafting from CWG-IANA 
to accommodate my items 1 and 2 above, then also including the final SLE 
wording would seem to be appropriate, for the sake of a more complete 
and more accountable proposal.

4. There are several specific comments and references in the Names 
Proposal to delegations and redelegations of ccTLDs, including 
referencing ICP-1, to the GAC Principles and to the applicability of 
"local law" which I have some ongoing issues with. Some of my issues are 
addressed in the ccNSO's "Framework of Interpretation", which was 
adopted by the ICANN Board in Buenos Aires and is now being implemented. 
Again, if the items 1 and 2 from my list are significant enough to 
require redrafting, I would propose that these issues could also be 
modified to reflect the up-to-date status that ICANN now has relating to 
the FOI that would clarify and enhance the Names Proposal. As time goes 
by implementation of the FOI will add further clarity, so perhaps this 
last set of issues is more appropriately dealt with by considering 
"friendly" amendments to the Names proposal from feedback in the ICG 
consultation process...



I know others have other issues, but provide the above as a starter of a 
more definitive "issues list"


Cheers

Keith




Cheers

Keith

On 8/07/2015 4:45 p.m., Paul Wilson wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2015, at 8:35, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote
>> down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>>
>> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin)
>> point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as
>> part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget,
>> etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these
>> for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or
>> supporting material)?
>>
>> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot
>> be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG.
>> My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with
>> public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of
>> the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>
> I agree we should move forward.
>
> Paul.
>
>
>>
>> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s
>> relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that.
>> I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval
>> of the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on
>> our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
> http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org