[CWG-RFP3] Proposed Agenda for Wednesday 12 November Meeting

[Milton L Mueller]

Matthew:
This assumes that a single IANA operator needs to combine names, numbers and protocol functions.
There are various parties who want that, and there are others who don't. I don't think integration should be assumed. Especially when, as you point out, it severely limits the ability of one of the operational communities to make changes that they might want.

Just for clarification.  Obviously we are talking about names at the moment, but wouldn't the structuring of IANA Inc. and decisions to initiate an RFP or to move IANA out of ICANN would require agreement with the other affected parties?  Which makes me wonder if the issues of IANA structure and performance/the consequences of not performing to agreed SLAs, etc., is something that should be addressed more holistically, across names, numbers and protocols.  Are we assuming that such issues will also be addressed by the ICG?

Thanks.

Matthew



On 11/12/2014 7:00 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All:

For easy comparison of the Strawman Proposals, I attach a "Strawman Matrix."
Greg

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Greg,

This is excellent work.

The three straw-mans are a good starting point for discussion.

Proposal 1 and 2 look well structured for discussion, and capture much of the discussion on this list till date.

In contrast, I think Proposal 3 appears to be an outlier. In Proposal 3, I do not understand the need to create a new legal entity for the oversight body (PROSI). Since Proposal 3 suggests the creation of a new IANA entity, the SLA could simply be between ICANN and the new IANA entity. There is no need for creation of a new legal entity for the oversight body. The current bulkiness of Proposal 3 makes it the first candidate for rejection.

Regards,
Guru



On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
All:

In the course of preparing for tomorrow's call, including discussions with the Co-Chairs of the CWG and other subgroup leads, it was decided that a preferred course of action would be to prepare three "Strawman Proposals" rather than a single "Framework Document" with multiple variables.  These three Strawman Proposals are attached.  The proposals are organized on a consistent outline, largely taken from the "Variables" document.  This will allow us to consider the proposals both "vertically" and "horizontally" (i.e., across the documents), and to swap sections as we move toward the ultimate deliverable of a single proposal.  The proposals are intended to capture most of the major alternatives discussed on this list, the CWG list, and in our calls, as well as in other documents circulated in the community.  However, if a particular alternative has not been captured in any proposal, that does not mean that it is "dead" or even disfavored.  Similarly, I expect there will be additional issues to be considered in any proposal, and these should be captured as well, either on the call or thereafter.

I apologize for the lateness of the hour; I hope you will see that the alternatives are not unfamiliar, even if they are now repackaged in proposal form.  In our call tomorrow morning, I would like to review and work through these proposals in lieu of items 2 and 3 of the agenda.  In the course of that review, we should aim to consider pro's and con's, which will be added to a document during our call, and then posted or circulated for further editing.  I expect that the Strawman Proposals will be similarly posted or circulated.

I look forward to our call.

Best regards,

Greg





--

Matthew Shears

Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>

+ 44 771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141112/b61fe50e/attachment.html>