[Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment

[Paul Wilson]

Here’s my combined proposal assessment (apologies for Word 
attachment).

I’m not confident that this is complete, or 100% accurate in terms of 
the status of certain specific elements which can be hard to 
locate/identify in the proposals.  But I hope a useful contribution.

To be honest I’m also not clear on the final plan for this assessment. 
  I’ve assumed that it will become a chapter in the final ICG 
proposal, so I wrote the attached in a reasonably structured and formal 
style.

Best,

Paul.




On 14 Jul 2015, at 7:35, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together 
> in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements 
> where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any 
> conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable 
> manner?
>
> MM response:
>
> A1. The IANA trademark and domain are not currently handled in a fully 
> compatible manner in my opinion. Numbers and protocols have reached 
> agreement on a compatible solution, but names has not. If one 
> disregards the bracketed section of the CWG proposal that deals with 
> the topic, one could say that all 3 proposals are compatible because 
> there really is no proposal from CWG, and thus it does not get in the 
> way of, or propose anything incompatible with, the solution proposed 
> by the CRISP team and the IANAPLAN WG. However, I do not think it is 
> optimal to consider the absence of an agreed proposal from CWG to be 
> the same thing as the names community having reached consensus around 
> a compatible proposal. It would be better for the CWG to explicitly 
> indicate their acceptance of the CRISP team proposal, or, if that 
> proves to not be possible, to propose an alternative that can gain the 
> acceptance of the numbers and protocol communities.
>
> A2. This is not a compatibility problem, but some issues related to 
> the legal separation of ICANN's IANA department from ICANN and the 
> movement of its assets, personnel, etc. into PTI need to be noted. It 
> should be clear from the CWG proposal that ALL IANA-related activities 
> and assets, not just those related to names, will be transferred to 
> PTI, or at least that is my understanding of it. If there is any doubt 
> about this it needs to be cleared up. Further, both the numbers and 
> the protocol communities, while not expressing objections to PTI, have 
> indicated that they prefer to contract for their IANA functions with 
> ICANN rather than doing it directly with PTI, even as ICANN contracts 
> with PTI for the names-related IANA functions. To avoid any 
> incompatibilities related to this, it should be made clear that ICANN 
> will use, and is required to use, its affiliate PTI to perform the 
> contracted IANA functions for numbers and protocols.
>
> B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and 
> properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running 
> the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under 
> the single proposal?
>
> B1. All 3 proposals rely most directly for accountability on the right 
> of the operational community to discard ICANN and select a new entity 
> for the performance of the IANA functions. This means that if the 
> status of the IANA trademark and domain are not resolved properly, the 
> combined proposal could fail to deliver an appropriate and properly 
> supported independent accountability mechanism. Any solution that 
> involves retention of the IANA trademark and domain by the incumbent 
> IANA operator would make switching IANA operators much more difficult 
> and costly, with all that that entails for accountability. Thus, the 
> IANA trademark and domain are not just compatibility issues but 
> accountability issues as well.
>
> B2. I concur with the analysis of Russ Housley that "The 
> CWG-Stewardship proposal depends on a yet-to-be-written 
> CCWG-Accountability document." The proposal made by the CCWG on 
> enhanced accountability must be acceptable to the entire engaged 
> community, and fully meshed with the CWG-Stewardship proposal, before 
> it can be considered as delivering an acceptable level of "overall 
> accountability."
>
> C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of 
> workability that were included in the component proposals conflict 
> with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in 
> combination?
>
> C1. I believe there are potential workability issues surrounding the 
> revision in the role of Verisign and its cooperative agreement. The 
> CWG-Stewardship proposal is vague about the type of relationship 
> between PTI and Verisign post-transition; and the NTIA is rather vague 
> about the future of the Verisign-NTIA Cooperative Agreement.
>
> C2. I note that Section IV, which includes a subsection IV.C on the 
> "Workability of any new technical or operational methods," is labelled 
> as "under development" in the CWG proposal.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Assessment-PW.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 128319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/b3ec1ca8/attachment.docx>