[Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline

Russ Mundy mundy at tislabs.com
Sun Jul 26 22:27:05 UTC 2015


On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the OCs. We haven’t confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.
> 
> Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 

Folks,

Overall, the draft slide deck is a very good presentation.  I think that XPLANE did an excellent job of incorporating a large, diverse amount of information into a very reasonable number of slides.  The set of changes that I'm suggesting here intended are to improve the accuracy and/or clarity of the content of the slide deck.

First, some general suggestions:

- The use of different colors for the different OC and combined proposals is excellent - I think that it would be good to use a similar background shading or a object fill color for the operational community proposals throughout the deck.

- At some point, the deck should mention that IANA operations need to continue to operate stably, securely and resiliently through all transitiion activities.  Although it was not explicitly mentioned, it was inferred in the March 2014 announcement so perhaps slide 5 could add the following in the left column:

"The IANA functions must continue to operate securely, stably and resiliently through entire process of transition."

Secondly, some specific suggestions for individual slides.  I tried to minimize the structural changes to the slides so the suggestions would be straight forward to incorporate - or reject:

- Slide 3:  At the top of the slide, the Operational Communitees should be shown seperately - perhaps with a surrounding box indicating "IANA Customers".   Suggest using "Names Community" (also change Slide 10), "Numbers Community" (also change Slide 19) and "Protocol Parameters Community" (perhaps change Slide 25).

--  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).

-- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:

--- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)

--- Change "Numbers Database" to "Numbers Information" 

--- Change "Protocol Database" to "Protocol Parameters Registries"

-- It's unclear what the three devices at the bottom of the slide represent but I think they are intended to indicate those that use information maintained and provided by IANA.  If this is a correct interpretation, suggest adding text under the devices that says (something like): "Consumbers = Any Internet User"  or something equivalent

- Slide 5: see second general comment above.

- There should be a slide added between the current slide 8 and slide 9 that actually says what the IANA names functions are - the illustrations of current slides 9 and 10 are examples of data but do not show what is involved with maintenance of the DNS Root Zone.  I suggest that text list be derived from the recent ICANN publication "The IANA Functions - An Introduction to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions" from the lists on pages 14, 17 & 18  that is available at:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-functions-15jun15-en.pdf

Other potential sources for the list of functions are the Names proposal paragraph P1.I.A. (1003)  or SSAC reports SAC-067 and SAC-068

- Slide 11 suggest changing "Customers" to "Names Community"

- Slide 15 only lists 6 of the 7 items the CWG said their proposal depended on the CCWG results - item 5 (Separation Process) is not currently listed and should be.

- Slide 19 has an * after "Service level Agreement" and "Review Performance" on the right side of the slide with no explanation.  I would suggest dropping the * or adding some descriptive text.

- Slide 28 (simple change) change "vmetrics" to "metrics".

- Slide 28 provides an excellent overview of providing an overall illustration of the oversight and accountability aspects of the three operational communities.  However, it does not show any of the regular, on-going interactions of the OCs.  It is, in fact, a very different perspective on the IANA functions than is provided in Slide 3.  This could incorrectly infer that the OCs proposals and transition will result in massive changes from how things work today.  To avoid this incorrect inference, I would suggest that the section needs to either have two slides, one to illustrate how the regular, on-going functions are accomplished by replicating Slide 3 or add text to the current slide that says "this illustrates accountability and oversight" and points to Slide 3 as the illustration of the regular, on-going functions.


Thoughts & responses from others are certainly welcome,

Russ M





More information about the Internal-cg mailing list