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

Wed Apr 22 13:25:53 UTC 2015

Hi,

DT-F also discussed this and the resulting recommendation appears in Annex N, p. 74, of version 3.3. We suggested that the important thing for now was less to specify anything in detail than to make sure we provide for future paths to getting the necessary work done in the absence of NTIA. I believe the resources and expertise will be available, but we need to make sure they can be mobilized as needed.

Personally I think the DT-C view as described here makes sense. I don't have an opinion yet on the specific alternatives proposed, although I do think it's important not to over-specify, since by definition we're talking about mechanisms for solving problems we don't have yet.

best,
Suzanne

On Apr 22, 2015, at 4:14 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:

> Greg,
>  
> A number of us in DT-C were concerned about the CSC having a role in this and we ended with two alternative wordings:
>  
> 1.       “In the event a change in IANA services is anticipated, the CSC is authorised to establish an ad hoc committee of technical and other experts to oversee the changes, in accordance with a defined process.” or
> 2.       “The CSC, in consultation with registry operators, is authorised to discuss with the IANA ways to enhance the provision of IANA’s operational services to meet changing technological environments; as a means to address performance issues; or other unforeseen circumstances. In the event it is agreed that a material change in IANA functions services or operations would be beneficial, the CSC reserves the right to call for a community consultation and independent validation, to be convened by IANA, on the proposed change. Any recommended change must be approved by the ccNSO and RySG.”
>  
> As you will see, neither gives sole responsibility to the CSC.  Both appear in annex G, both look to a wider engagement in discussions.
>  
> As others, I am not convinced that final decisions should be taken by the PTI, unless it was simply to adopt recommendations approved by the directly impacted stakeholders and that had received good buy-in during the consultation process.  Actual accountability needs to be somewhere and that would appear to me to be through the parent of the PTI – ie via the ICANN Board – given the model we are working on.  There are a number of groups whose agreement (as directly impacted) would be vital:  IETF, IAB, ccNSO, RySG, and I’m sure many others, not just the two referenced!
>  
> So CSC could initiate a process, PTI needs to be happy that due process has been followed and the decision has got good buy-in, but accountability – and therefore final decision – would need to be at the ICANN Board level and subject to the various accountability processes over them (including review).
>  
> Martin
>  
>  
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
> Sent: 22 April 2015 07:16
> To: David Conrad
> Cc: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3
>  
> This issue (who makes decisions about or approves "architectural changes to the root system" in the absence of the NTIA) bears further review.  The CSC doesn't seem like the right place at all.  The PTI Board makes some sense, but only if we are not keeping it minimalist.  Could the NTIA role simply disappear (as we propose to happen with the authorization/validation function)?
>  
> Greg
>  
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:14 AM, David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org> wrote:
> Avri,
>  
> Thanks for the clarification.
>  
> And I am not lumping them in with any policy decisions currently being made.  In fact that is the crux of my question: where will these decisions be made?  The PTI Board?  If so we should make sure it is reflected in the list.
>  
> This is one of the things I've been a bit wound up about.  I've called it "architectural changes to the root system".
>  
> Currently,my view is that that decision is made by NTIA, using processes known only to them (but which, from empirical evidence would appear to include consultation with technical experts at NIST and elsewhere).  I had thought a logical place would be the CSC via the creation of an ad hoc, technically knowledgable committee, but I gather my assumptions of the role of the CSC were in error. Personally, I don't care too much who makes the decision, just that the decision is made by folks who understand the issues and the process by which the decision is made is open, transparent, accountable, and well documented (and makes sense, of course).
>  
> Regards,
> -drc
>  
>  
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150422/87b55486/attachment.html>