[Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Wed Jul 29 14:28:51 UTC 2015


Hi Russ,

Responding below on a few points.

On Jul 26, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:

> 
> 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.

I’m not sure I understand. The objects already are color-coded throughout the deck. I.e., parameters are light blue, numbers are green, and names are purple.

> 
> - 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.”

I would not feel comfortable putting this text there because it does not actually appear in the NTIA announcement. I agree that this is important but I don’t think we should attribute it to NTIA in that way. Maybe we could write “Continued security, stability and resilience of the IANA functions” along the bottom of slide 6?

> 
> 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).

Since this is the very first substantive slide, I’m not sure it makes sense to dive right into that level of detail. Furthermore, this would be hard to depict for protocol parameters since lots of registries can be populated by anyone who wants to register something and those people may not really consider themselves part of the “protocol parameters community.” I’d rather opt for simplicity in slide 3.

Slide 10: changing to “Names community” seems fine

Slide 19: this slide comes from the CRISP team so I’m reluctant to change how they have labelled the diagram.

Slide 25: In this case it is the IETF that is the entity with relationships to IANA/ICANN, so I would again be reluctant to change this.

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

Agree — “make requests” is generic and the speaker can explain what that means.

> 
> -- 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”

My proposal would be to strike all three instances of the word “Database.” So the labels would just be “Names,” “Numbers” and “Protocol Parameters.” The speaker can explain what the repositories are that are depicted by the black boxes.

> 
> -- 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

I think this is something the speaker can explain, i.e., that the identifiers get used in software running on Internet users’ devices.

> 
> - 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

Could you provide exactly the list of bullets you would want to see?

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

This is another slide that comes directly from one of the OCs (the CWG), so I’m reluctant to suggest a change.

> 
> - 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.

I would propose to add a box with the following text after the CSC box:

“Empowerment of the Special IFR to determine that a separation process is necessary” 

with “separation process” in bold

> 
> - 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.

Agree, this is left over from an earlier version.

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

Good catch.

> 
> - 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.

Per our discussion on the call, would it work for you if we title this slide “Oversight components in the combined proposal”?

Thanks,
Alissa

> 
> 
> Thoughts & responses from others are certainly welcome,
> 
> Russ M
> 
> 




More information about the Internal-cg mailing list