[Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment

Tue Jul 14 07:46:57 UTC 2015

All,

a few comments from my side re both Paul's and Milton's analyses:

1. IANA.org trademark handling: agree that a CWG confirmation to the 
CRISP/IANAPLAN proposal should be requested

2. PTI: I understand Paul's concern re a potential delay in establishing the 
PTI and the question what should then happen with the numbers related SLA. 
But first it should be clear what "delay" means in this case as I don't see 
a concrete delay as long as the contract with NTIA still exists.
Secondly I'm not sure whether subcontracting of the SLAs should be just an 
option or mandatory. Both seem workable solutions to me; a decision should 
be taken upon economic reasons.

3. accountability: agreed that all 3 OC's should (formally?) confirm the 
CCWG proposal.

I'll try to participate in the call but maybe just in listening mode due to 
the early hour.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Paul Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:01 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment

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

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 