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

[Alissa Cooper]

This is great. Thank you Daniel and Paul.

Alissa

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 5:49 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.