[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Donna Austin]

Hi Avri

I’m interested to know how the primary ‘naming’ customers of the IANA services are recognised under your model. It seems that ccTLD and gTLD registries are captured under the ICANN community. Could you elaborate on the role or voice of the customer under your proposed model.

Thanks,

Donna

[Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne | Los Angeles
P  +1 310 890 9655
P  +61 3 9866 3710
E  donna.austin at ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>
W  www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/>

Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices>

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2015 6:09 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

Hi,

As mentioned in an earlier email, Matthew Shears, Brenden Kuerbis and I have been working on a model that attempts to integrate solutions to some of the various sets of concerns by those favoring internal models and those preferring  external models while trying to make the model simpler and more accountable to the IANA ecosystem and the wider community.  During Singapore week we spoke to as many as we could about this model and have received, and worked through, a number of comments on the open  drive draft document, which we announced on the list.

The working draft, which is still a work in progress and remains open for comment can be found at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5YZCU/edit?usp=sharing

I have attached a pdf version of a snapshot draft of the doc as of today.

We would like to be able to present this at the next RFP3 meeting.  Or anywhere else that is appropriate.

We are also working on drafts to document the means by which this model responds to NTIA requirements, but we will able to speak those on list and during the meeting.

In the draft we present three possible configurations for the model.  The authors believe that Shared Service Arrangement (page 6) is the preferred configuration, as it offers the most accountability for the least amount of change or complexity.  We would also be interested to see how these models fare under the stress testing - we have not done that in any focused way yet, though we have kept those tests in mind.

It should be noted that this model would require a minimal amount of accommodation by the Protocols and Number communities, but believe that this accommodation while not disturbing their current model in any significant way would make IANA more accountable to them as well.

Thanks

avri


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150219/21e692d1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150219/21e692d1/image001-0001.png>