[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract

[Guru Acharya]

Hi Allan,

This is excellent work and extremely helpful. I haven't gone through it in
detail yet but I have a slight query to begin with.

In the triage, what is the suggested criteria/heuristic for checking a
clause as "Linked to Accountability & Oversight"?

For example, why would "Audit Requirements" in C.5 not satisfy the criteria?

Or say something completely administrative, like "C.2.9.2: Perform
Administrative Functions Associated With Root Zone Management". Why would
this not be linked to NTIA oversight?

Thanks,
Guru



On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:58 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

>  Hi Allan,
>
>  Im still looking to assist with this, Ill look over your draft over the
> weekend.
>
>  Thanks for kicking this off.
>
>  James
>
>  On 24 Oct 2014, at 21:14, Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
> wrote:
>
>   Please find attached an initial draft of the triage of the IANA
> functions contract as discussed on the CWG call this week.
>
>  The first document is the draft Triage itself, organized as per our
> meeting this week.  In the second I have pasted the provisions that I have
> brought together all of the provisions that I categorized as “Likely Needs
> Improving”  and “Linked to Accountability and Oversight”.   I know that a
> number of you, including Chuck Gomes, Kris Seeburn, Greg Shatan, James
> Gannon, Guru Acharya, Mary Uduma, Wanawit Ahkuputra, and Pitinan
> Kooarmornpatana have all volunteered to work on this.  Thank you.  I have
> sent the drafts to the full list as I do not have all of your emails.
> Could I ask that anyone who has already volunteered, or anyone that wishes
> to do so now, to respond quickly to this email so that we might start a CWG
> RFP2C list.
>
>  I invite you to review the current draft documents.  I am hoping that
> this can be done in the documents themselves.  But if the comments and
> changes become too cumbersome, I will ask Bart or Marika to suggest how we
> can deal with these.  In closing let me make a general comment.  I see the
> objective of this exercise as being to *identify* potential issues that
> will need to be addressed at some point.  I do not, however, see *the
> resolution* of these issues as being part of this SWG’s work.  Rather I
> see its objective as being to inform the work of the other SWG’s, RFP3 in
> particular.
>
>  Regards
>
>  Allan
>
>  <INITIAL TRIAGE OF IANA FUNCTIONS CONTRACT.docx><ISSUE FLOWING FROM IANA
> FUNCTIONS CONTRACT ORG II.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141025/1c3f079e/attachment.html>