[CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3

[Greg Shatan]

Milton:

I'll respond inline:

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Greg,
>
> Thanks for your initial work.
>
>
>
> I find the draft objectives in their proposed form needlessly complex. To
> my mind there are only two basic objectives, and they can be stated simply:
>
>
>
> 1.      That the functions currently provided for in the NTIA/IANA
> contract continue to be performed in a secure, efficient, and stable manner.
>
>
>
> 2.      That there be an effective replacement for the accountability
> formerly provided by the NTIA contracting process and US government
> oversight.
>
Taking my coordinator hat off for a moment, I tend to agree that these are
the two most basic objectives of our entire project.  I might also add
replacing the RZM final check that NTIA provided.  The "Objectives"
document was sent to me by Allan McGillivray and (coordinator hat back on)
I wanted to put into the stream of conversation and let the reactions to it
come from the group.

(Coordinator hat off) I found that list of Objectives interesting, but I
felt it represented a commercial wish-list on the part of registries of
what they hoped to get from IANA, rather than objectives tied directly to
our mandate from the NTIA.  I don't say that to exclude it from
discussion.  An element of oversight could well include improvement and
evolution of functionality, rather than merely guarding against a
degradation of performance.  On the other hand, I think (hat still off) we
need to be careful about creating an oversight body that could function as
a trade association for registries.

>
>
> It would be a mistake moreover to get bogged down in discussing objectives
> rather than doing our work, which is to prepare a consensus response to
> the ICG RFP.
>
>
>
I hope to keep us from getting bogged down in anything (while still
allowing a certain amount of latitude for things to be raised).  There is a
value in being clear what our objectives are (and aren't).  A project that
is not clear on its objectives is in trouble.  That said, I think 1 and 2
above (+RZM) are our most basic objectives.


>  I think the list of variables might be used as a checklist to review
> specific proposals, but this exercise has its limits. The number of
> “Variables” is potentially infinite and you will never capture them all.
> You have to have specific proposals and the idea that a final, acceptable
> proposal will jump out at us from gigantic piles of variables is not
> realistic.
>

I did intend the variables to be essentially a checklist or "yardstick"
(meterstick for our metric colleagues, though I think the idiom fails),
i.e., any proposal has to deal with these issues/variables to be reasonably
complete.  I think the list of *important *variables is far from infinite
(or gigantic) -- that said, this list is a first draft and I'm happy to see
it evolve. I can put this in Google Drive fairly quickly.

>
>
> The pros and cons table is more useful, because it presumes specific
> structural options. However, again I find the format somewhat prejudicial,
> in that factors that are absolutely critical, such as accountability or its
> absence, have not been listed or given their proper weight in relation to
> other things. Also some of the cons are a bit prejudicial, such as the
> claim that registries may not be willing to fund a names IANA when in fact
> they are already funding it, just implicitly and non-transparently.
>

Again, this is a first draft document and can evolve if others contribute
to it.  As more voices are added, it will tend to reflect more viewpoints
-- items can be added or re-emphasized (or de-emphasized).  I'm not sure I
would say that anything is "prejudicial" -- these are postulates to be
tested.  One stakeholder's pro may be another stakeholder's con.

Finally, I would say that the most important drafting is the drafting of
proposals.  These documents are intended to provide guidance (the
Variables) and commentary (the Pro's/Con's/Questions) as we work toward our
Main Goal. We shouldn't get obsessed with sharpening our tools when our
objective is to build a boat.

Greg



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Monday, November 3, 2014 3:14 AM
> *To:* RFP3
> *Subject:* [CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3
>
>
>
> All:
>
>
>
> Thank you again for your support and commitment.
>
>
>
> 1.  As an initial matter, I would like to suggest that we have a
> conference call of this subgroup on Thursday, November 6 from 14:00 to
> 15:30 UTC.  I don't think there is enough time before Tuesday's call of the
> CWG to have a subgroup.  If you cannot participate at this time, please
> respond ASAP.  If the time doesn't work, we'll go to a Doodle poll, but I
> think a call of this subgroup this week is critical to moving forward in a
> timely fashion.
>
>
>
> 2.  I have created a draft document with a proposed list of topics that
> need to be addressed by any proposal, along with several variables for each
> topic.  I think it is important to identify the topics any proposal needs
> to address before we move on to drafting any particular proposal(s).  A
> great deal of this document is based on proposals drafted by Allan
> McGillivray, for which I am exceedingly grateful.  I also tried to draw on
> the active discussions on the general list up to this time.  This document
> is only intended as a starting point, and can be put up in Google Drive
> and/or a wiki by staff or by myself.
>
>
>
> 3.  I have also provided a draft document with pro's and con's and
> questions relating to one of the key topics -- the status of the IANA
> Operating Function -- and three potential variables (IANA stays as is, IANA
> becomes a subsidiary of ICANN, IANA is independent of ICANN).  Again, this
> document reflects contributions by Allan to  a very great extent, is only
> intended as a starting point, and can be put into Google Drive and/or a
> wiki.
>
>
>
> 4.  Allan also prepared a draft document of Objectives.  I have included
> this document as well.
>
>
>
> 4. For clarity please use "Subject" lines that reflect the contents of
> your email.  Please start new threads or rename threads if you are going
> off in a new direction or diving into details on a particular subtopic,
> rather than merely replying to a general email like this one.  That will
> make it much easier to capture ideas without too much hunting.
>
>
>
> I look forward to comments and discussions of these documents and based on
> these documents   (Of course, these documents do not reflect the views of
> my employer (nor do Allan's contributions reflect the views of his
> employer).)
>
>
>
> I hope this is helpful to our task.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141103/e6694e52/attachment-0001.html>