[Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment

Tue Jul 14 08:23:41 UTC 2015

On 14 Jul 2015, at 17:46, WUKnoben wrote:
> All,
>
> a few comments from my side re both Paul's and Milton's analyses:

Thanks for the response.

>
> 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.

I felt that this was clear enough in my text, but I’m happy to discuss 
clarifications if it is agreed to include this issue in an 
“official” ICG assessment.

> 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.

I believe any subcontracting must be optional, for consistency with the 
CRISP proposal, and I expect with the IANAPLAN proposal as well.  Also I 
think it would not be appropriate for the ICG to impose such a mandatory 
requirement on a community proposal, where this was not an obvious (and 
preferably confirmed) interpretation by the ICG of some ambiguous 
element.

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

I’m not sure about this, as it seems that this issue is out of the 
ICG’s scope.  I think all we can ask is whether the proposals 
themselves are complete in terms of the required or expected 
accountability mechanisms.

All the best

Paul

>
> 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

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg