[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V3.2
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Sun Apr 19 22:23:38 UTC 2015
Hi,
It would be good it there pages numbers. Maybe because I am using
libreoffice i did not see them. In my notes I use the page numbers I
added to my version.
The suggestion of numbers paragraphs that was made on list, it is a
pretty good idea as well.
Overall comment. Our proposal still seems somewhat disjoint. That and
the number of things that are still listed as TBD makes it ever harder
to suspend disbelief about making the deadline. We have a lot of work
to do yet.
Some specific comments/questions below:
--
/Page 5/
>
> Overlap or interdependencies between your IANA requirements
> and the functions required by other customer communities
>
What process is there for dealing with possible future differences of
opinion between operational communities on those issues? Does something
need to be elaborated?
--
/Page 9/
> Local laws applicable to ccTLDs, or IDN ccTLDs, associated with a
> specific country or territory are developed by the governments of
> those countries or territories
>
Is it worth mentioning that they are also only applicable within those
countries or territories?
--
/Page 13/
> For most gTLDs the language is: /Disputes arising under or in
> connection with this Agreement that are not resolved pursuant to
> Section 5.1, including requests for specific performance, will be
> resolved through binding arbitration conducted pursuant to the rules
> of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber
> of Commerce. Any arbitration will be in front of a single arbitrator,
> unless (i) ICANN is seeking punitive or exemplary damages, or
> operational sanctions, (ii) the parties agree in writing to a greater
> number of arbitrators, or (iii) the dispute arises under Section 7.6
> or 7.7. In the case of clauses (i), (ii) or (iii) in the preceding
> sentence, the arbitration will be in front of three arbitrators with
> each party selecting one arbitrator and the two selected arbitrators
> selecting the third arbitrator./
>
>
> For ccTLDs the language relating to this is usually a version of the
> following: /Each party shall nominate one arbitrator, and the two
> arbitrators so nominated shall, within 30 days of the confirmation of
> their appointment, nominate the third arbitrator, who will act as
> Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal./
>
Does some form of this language belong in the bylaws as one of
appeals/redress mechanisms. Is this something that should be discussed
by CCWG?
--
/Page 14/
> For gTLDs the arbitration will be conducted in the English language
> and will occur in Los Angeles County, California, USA
>
Given the international dispute resolution concerns, is this still
appropriate?
--
/Page 17/
> 1.
>
>
> The elements of this proposal
>
Should the possibility of an SLA between ICANN and the the IFO be
include in the list?
Even with a functional separation configuration defining an SLA, or
rather a Service Level Requirement, might be reasonable.
--
/Page 18/19/
> While the IANA Function Review will normally be scheduled based on a
> regular 5 year rotation with other ICANN reviews, it may also be
> initiated by a the Customer Standing Committee (CSC).
>
Is this the only way to trigger it?
The latest suggestion from the DT-N short text was:
“While the IANA Review Function will normally be scheduled based on a
regular 5 year rotation with other ICANN reviews, it may also be
initiated by a defined community process.”
The 'community process' has not yet been agreed upon.
I also note that Annex D (CT-N), includes the following:
> While the Periodic Review will normally be scheduled based on a
> regular 5 year rotation with other ICANN reviews. A Special Periodic
> Review may be also be initiated by community action:
>
> *
>
> Recommendation of the CSC and 1 SO
>
> *
>
> Recommendation of a combination of 3 AC/SO, including at least one
> SO and one AC in agreement.
>
Unfortunately that text was not reproduced under the triggers section
(my fault).
I also do not think it has been discussed in the full group yet.
In any case this needs further discussion
--
/Page 24/
III.A.x. Regulatory and Legal Obligations
Formatting error: it is listed under III.A.ix and does not have its own
header/number.
--
/Page 24/
In a previous note this is a place I suggested listing -- iii.A.xi
Separation Decision Mechanism (which is different from DT-F which is
separation operation requirements - which could happen as either the
result of a catastrophe or a decision.)
--
/Page 26/
>
> Operational requirements to achieve continuity of service and
> possible new service integration throughout the transition
>
Do any of these require Bylaws changes?
--
/Annex A/ -
Does this need to also deal with possible RFC6791 Special-use domain
names issues?
---
/Annex A /
1.
*Redelegation and Operation of the .INT TLD (NTIA IANA Functions
Contract: C.2.9.4)*
NTIA could have decided to that at any point. If the contract is
replaced by transition mechanisms, will it still be possible to
>
> Upon designation of a successor registry
>
Do we need a process and triggers for such a process? Seems to me we
do. Otherwise are we are saying this stays with IANA for evermore?
--
/Annex D /
In general needs to be edited for general reference to IRT instead of
various forms of [Periodic] IANA Function Review. If indeed IRT is the
name we are settling on. Personally I am not sure the name of the team
should be used as the name of the review, but can live with any name we
wish to give it.
> *What should trigger reviews?*
>
As mentioned above this needs to be edited to include the correct
triggers for the Special IRT*.*
--
/Annex F/
> Overall, responses on behalf of just 28 managers were received (see
> Appendix B). Such a low level of response was judged to be an
> insufficient a basis to provide a mandate for the inclusion of an
> appeal mechanism in the CWG’s proposal
>
Was the fact that the opinions of those who did answer might be ignored
announced up front? Was there a threshold of responses predefined for
the survey? If not seems problematic to ignore the results.
Why is an appeals mechanism that is optional but was favored by 26
active ccTLDs not the right answer?
--
/Annex I/ - Does the CSC charter belong in the Bylaws?
--
/Annex N/ - If the IANA contract provisions that persist post transition
are not in a contract between ICANN and its IANA affiliate, then were
are they codified? Bylaws?
--
/Annex M
//
/
> The NTIA has contributed and opened avenues to resources (such as
> those from NIST – the National Institute of Standards and
> Technologies, a part of the U.S. Department of Commerce in efforts
> surrounding DNSSEC). Moreover as the Root Zone Administrator, they
> have been the entity to ultimately approve the changes going forward.
Who will be responsible for this going forward?
> *The design team does not fully agree on this recommendation. Although
> no one suggests any merger at this time, *
>
> *some do not believe that there are sufficient hard reasons to make it
> a “principle”. Comments are welcome on this issue.*
>
With relation to the issue of the Mutli-party organization, and do we
need to have an RZM separate form the IFO:
I assume we are not thinking of Assigning the IFO to the RZM, so really
are we just asking if the RZM function will be subsumed into the IFO
function? Or would the two functions remain separate but just both
assigned to IANA?
To what purpose?
And isn't this issue out of scope at the moment?
--
/Appendix A/
> *
>
> *Security Authorization and Management Policy *
>
>
... and other sections of the Appendix
Some of the formatting is hard to follow – especially in regard to
subordinate clauses.
Also who be responsible for the policy aspects of any possible future
changes to this process or to its technical details?
That is about it for now
avri
On 17-Apr-15 17:58, Marika Konings wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Please find attached for your review the latest version of the
> CWG-Stewardship Transition Proposal. Please note that it is still very
> much work in progress as some key pieces are still missing such as the
> information from the legal memo that is forthcoming, outstanding work
> of the design teams (DT A) as well as final language from ‘DT X’.
> However, we did already want to give you an opportunity to review
> where we are at and as such we would like to encourage you to instead
> of editing the document line by line, to focus on whether there is
> information missing or incorrect, the updated recommendations of some
> of the design teams (e.g. DT M and N) as well as reviewing some of the
> changes we have made for style and consistency purposes to the DT
> recommendations. Note that thanks to Kim Davies a number of
> clarifications have been made to section I and II.
>
> We are still working on the annexes (focused on consistency and
> readability) as well as formatting and numbering of the overall document.
>
> As we’ve moved quite some things around in section III to follow a
> more logical order, there is a lot of redline in the document which
> does not necessarily represent new or changed content, but also
> content that has changed position. As such, you will also find
> attached a clean version to facilitate your review.
>
> Please share any comments you may have (preferably with a reference to
> page number and section) with the mailing list by Monday 23.59 UTC at
> the latest.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150419/6faf6840/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list