[Internal-cg] FW: action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5

[Martin Boyle]

Not hearing back, I forward the mail I sent last night on PTI and separation for today's call.

Proposed text is below

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Boyle 
Sent: 22 September 2015 21:32
To: 'Jari Arkko'; Milton L Mueller; Paul Wilson
Subject: RE: action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5
Importance: High

Yes, sorry guys, I only started to do this this morning on the train to and from a meeting in London.  It's quite a big dossier...  I've just focussed on the first page:  D.1.  I've bottled out on D.1.e. though, which is an RIR question.

First job is to look at all the inputs.  I am assuming the list on the slides is complete, but anyone aware of an omission?  This was a pretty tedious and slow job!

More interesting is to prepare our recommendations for ICG action:  below for D.1.  I attach a collation of the actual words of the comments and my basic assessment - the things that informed my proposed way forward.


D. Separation processes (R. Dara-23, D. Huberman-29, PiRRC-51, NZ gov-56, USCIB-81, CENTR-83, ALAC-88, J. Panday-89, ICANN BC-92, PK-102, IA-103, A. Doria-104, F. Hopkinson-105, CDT-107, INTA-110, ICANN Board-121, IPC-125, CIS-126)

1. More clarity needed about escalation processes prior to separation, who will be involved in them, what standard should be for separation (29, 51, 81, 83, 88, 92, 102, 103, 105, 121)  [Note:  did not find the relevant comment in 51 or 105]

*  Proposed action:  forward to OCs (not just CWG):

A significant number of comments highlighted that they would wish to see more detail on the escalation processes prior to a change of IANA functions operator.  Contributions included requests for defining a standard and criteria to determine whether separation should be considered, detail about the process to be followed, and escalation and issue resolution mechanisms.

[For CWG:  We recognise that the Names Proposal identifies mechanisms for issue resolution (the CSC) and an escalation path through the GNSO RySG and the ccNSO (which could also include resolution efforts) before invoking a special review.  The concerns seem to be more linked to the action once the escalation has been initiated.]

[For other OCs:  We would welcome information about the escalation processes that would be used to appoint a new IANA functions operator.]

If the [OC] agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for any additional information so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined transition proposal.



One comment suggested that there might need to be an accelerated process in the (probably unlikely) case where there was a threat to security or stability.  

Another comment identified that part of the separation process should be to carry out a high-level risk assessment and that that should include the financial impacts of changing the operator.

If the [OC] agrees with this suggestion and wishes to add to its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendments.



A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the Operational Communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff).  This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties.

For this to work, all three operational communities will need to agree to establish some form of cooperation:  we would encourage you to discuss this with the other Operational Communities and if you agree to include this, please send us verbatim text to reflect an agreed amendment.


[For CWG:  One comment expressed concern over expanded GAC role in the Separation Working Group, noting that this significantly expands the GAC's mandate within ICANN.  We would be grateful for your confirmation that the wider implications of this have been considered by CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability and that you are content to proceed on the basis outlined in the proposal.]




***NOTE:  I have not tried to respond to "e. RIRs must establish a dispute resolution process (89) PTI and related bodies"


Hope this helps

Martin



-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net]
Sent: 22 September 2015 05:08
To: Martin Boyle; Milton L Mueller; Paul Wilson
Subject: action item 2 sub-team 3: PTI related issues slide 4-5

Just starting a thread on this. Tomorrow Tuesday I'll be able to do some work on this in the evening, but not before that. Not sure if you guys have already succeeded in sending something out; didn't see an e-mail yet.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Separation Process comments.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 45856 bytes
Desc: Separation Process comments.docx
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/fe786f51/attachment.docx>