[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

Thu Feb 19 04:32:50 UTC 2015

Thanks Avri, your response is helpful.

On the use of the word capture: my intent was more aligned with ‘part of the ICANN community’.

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 3:15 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

Hi,

In this model, that question is left up to each of the operational communities and the way in which they pick their representatives to the Community Board.  As you know there are varied opinions on the degree to which the G and C registries are the only relevant customers. Personally I tend toward a multistakeholder customer view, but the model does not predicate a particular mix and those of us who worked on it probably have different points of view on this. You say

It seems that ccTLD and gTLD registries are captured under the ICANN community.

I tend to see them as part of the ICANN community. Not captured by it.

In terms of the CSC, the Registries have already achieved the majority voice as was requested - it was my understanding that Registries would be more sharing with the rest of us when it came to the MRT or MRT like bodies.  In terms of the MRT, the mainstream discussion is ongoing: Registries vs. Multistakeholder.  This model lists one possible way of distributing the community board.  In this form, it allows for 3-5 votes  per operational community according to their own multistakeholder decision - though they can field a bigger group of participants if necessary and have normalized representation.  How we in ICANN decide to split those votes is up to us.  There are modes that are multistakeholder (5 votes distributed across the SOs and ACs, perhaps with some rotation) or we could have a mode where there were only 3 votes (1 to each registry type and one to the rest of us). In some sense it is a continuation of the MRT disagreement over the degree of the multistakeholder participation in the Community Board representatives for ICANN.  Of course we could also expand the Community Board to 7 from each operation community, but that seems like too large a Community Board to me.  But not necessarily to others.  What is important in the model for accountability checks and balances to work is parity among the operational communities.  How each of them parses their votes, and in our case how ICANN does it, is up to us and not determined in the model.

Our goal was to make a simpler model and to find a path toward resolution on the inside/outside dichotomy.  Solving the balance between Registries as 'direct' customers, and a distributed multistakeholder model, remains on our plate.  We offer one way to think about it, but it is not a structural element of the model or of any of the configurations.

It is also important to remember that this Board has very little to do with the SLAs themselves and is more about budget, continuity and exceptions processing.

One additonal point, this model, in all of the configurations, requires the creation of specific SLA for the G&C Registry operations.  Determining those would most probably be primarily a Registry affair and would be monitored by the Registry dominant CSC.

avri

On 18-Feb-15 21:55, Donna Austin wrote:
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

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> [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<mailto: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/20150219/67e553b5/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/20150219/67e553b5/image001-0001.png>