[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3

Tue Apr 21 18:54:42 UTC 2015

Milton,

I don't think these sorts of exaggerated statements are helpful.

Historically, in terms of workload and policy setting, IANA was "controlled"
far more by the protocol parameter community than the names operational
community (which is, of course, a subset of the ICANN community). And it is
certainly not the case that the IANA functions were "operated" by the names
operational community ‹ IANA staff were not related to that community at
all. I don't believe that has changed all that much since I ran the IANA
functions.

Regards,
-drc

From:  Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
Date:  Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 11:32 AM
To:  'Martin Boyle' <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
Cc:  CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3

> Martin
> I also think Andrew¹s clear distinction between IANA and names-related IANA
> functions was correct.
>  
> Because IANA is currently controlled and operated by the names operational
> community (ICANN), there is no way for a names proposal to _not_ touch on
> numbers or protocol parameters in some way. That is the ³design flaw² that
> makes the names part of this hard. The legal separation makes this issue less
> of a problem but will require some coordination and adjustment by the other
> OCs. But that is not a big deal; the numbers proposal already required some
> adjustment and coordination by the protocols community. There is no way to
> avoid these interdependencies.  But adjustments to facilitate compatibility
> are not the same as one OC telling another what to do.
>  
> --MM
>  
> 
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:33 PM
> To: Greg Shatan; Alissa Cooper
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3
>  
> I think that Greg is right, that we were not mandated in the CWG to look at
> numbers or protocol parameters.  While that might sit uneasily, I¹m not sure I
> really know about the flow of funding or the accountability/stewardship role
> in the light of Milton¹s assertion.
>  
> Specifically asking CRISP & IANAPLAN for views as to where they would see
> their relationship lying (given the ring-fencing of the IANA functions
> operator into a subsidiary in ICANN) would seem to me to be appropriate.  They
> could, after all, contract/sign an MoU with either ICANN or ICANN¹s affiliate.
>  
> Martin
>  
> 
> From:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
> Sent: 21 April 2015 17:14
> To: CW Lists
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3
>  
> 
> I agree with Alissa that this needs to be clarified.  Some of the lack of
> clarity is due to concern about having a proposal that goes beyond naming
> functions.  This has resulted in some odd phrasings and odd proposals.
> 
>  
> 
> In my view, splitting the IANA personnel and assets so this is a "names-only"
> proposal is unrealistic and unnecessary. Because we are within ICANN, we have
> a different relationship to the IANA Functions group.  We should make it clear
> that the whole ball of wax would move to PTI, and put that out for public
> comment.  We should flag this specifically for the CRISP and IANAPLAN group.
> 
>  
> 
> Greg
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> > wrote:
> 
> In this instance, I agree with Christopher.  I believe both statements are
> accurate (though the first is less than mellifluous in its phrasing).
> 
>  
> 
> Greg Shatan
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:36 AM, CW Lists <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> > wrote:
> 
> I prefer the existing text, unchanged.
> 
>  
> 
> CW
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 21 Apr 2015, at 16:47, Brenden Kuerbis <bnkuerbi at syr.edu
> <mailto:bnkuerbi at syr.edu> > wrote:
>  
>> 
>> Hi Marika,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The first bullet in Section III.A says:
>> 
>>  
>>> 
>>> ICANN, through an affiliate controlled by ICANN, to continue as the IANA
>>> Functions Operator for the Naming Related Services through the creation of a
>>> separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Section III.A.i.a, which is text provided by Sidley in consultation with the
>> CWG, says:
>> 
>>  
>>> A contract would be entered between PTI and ICANN, which would give PTI the
>>> rights and obligations as the IANA Functions Operator.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I believe the latter statement is correct, and the prior bullet is
>> inconsistent with it (or at least very unclear). Perhaps Sidley could provide
>> more accurate text for the bullet in Section III.A, or I would suggest:
>> 
>>  
>>> * Creation of a legally separated affiliate, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), to
>>> provide the IANA functions.
>>  
>> 
>> This would be followed by the existing bullets:
>> 
>>  
>>> * Establishment of service level agreement between ICANN and PTI, the IANA
>>> Functions Operator for the Naming Related Services.
>>> * Changes proposed to root zone environment and relationship with root zone
>>> maintainer.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -- Brenden
>>  
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
>> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> > wrote:
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others,
>> a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as
>> a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that
>> we¹ve also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that
>> need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage
>> the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for
>> review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as
>> possible.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Also, note that we¹ve incorporated those edits and/or comments that we
>> considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as
>> responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those
>> responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections
>> and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration
>> by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or
>> clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> For your convenience I¹ve attached a redline and clean version both in Word
>> as well as pdf.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks again for all your feedback!
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Marika 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150421/68f4cc2c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150421/68f4cc2c/smime-0001.p7s>