[Internal-cg] Part 0 Draft Text on Critisisms about Complexity and Size

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 23.09.15 0:30 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Kavouss,
> 
> Thanks. The proposed updates to Part 0 that were assigned to various
> people at the F2F are due Sept 27 for review on the mailing list next week.
> 
> Alissa

And here is the assignment from Paul and Daniel.

We'll leave it to the editor where to weave it in
after the "committee-editing" stage. ;-)

Daniel

-------

Some comments have suggested that the ICG proposal is unexpectedly
or overly complex, and in some cases implied that this perceived
complexity represents a threat to the workability of the proposal.

It is true that the ICG proposal is a lengthy document: It contains three
substantial components which are very detailed and also different in
structure and content, making it difficult for any one observer to fully
absorb.  However this structure is a direct result of the ICG's chosen
approach to the transition planning process, namely to recognise that
the IANA serves three distinct operational communities and to allow them
to devise their respective plans independently, according to their
own needs, priorities and processes.

The ICG's chosen approach could be regarded as an application of the
subsidiarity principle, whereby the solution to any given problem should
be located as close as possible to those who are affected by it; which
in a bottom up process inevitably results in a variety of independent
outcomes which are naturally diverse.  The ICG believes that this
variety of approaches, which is clearly apparent in the transition
proposal, does not in itself represent complexity.  Rather it represents
a large body of work, but a body which is cleanly divided amongst the
separate proposals, and which features, as expected, few interactions or
dependencies among those 3 components.

At the outset of its work the ICG has considered a different process
with an aim to produce a more uniform singular solution.  However, the
ICG felt that such an approach would have been extremely challenging,
and less likely to produce a single plan with the full support of the
entire community.  It is possible in fact that such a singular solution
would turn out be more complex than the plan which has been produced.

One final consideration, related again to the volume of work rather than
to complexity, is that the implementation of each of the 3 plans will
impose substantial workload on the IANA.  This needs to be managed
carefully during the implementation period, in consultation with the
communities regarding respective requirements and priorities, in order
to ensure that the transition takes place within the required timeframe.