[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Gomes, Chuck]

Thanks Avri.  Forgive me if this was already discussed by I haven’t been able to keep up on this very well.

·         Has this approach been vetted with the protocol and numbers communities?

·         What does it mean that “ICANN establishes SLAs/MoU with Post Transition IANA”?  Why would ICANN be involved in this?

·         With regard to the overall status of the IANA functions operator, I understand the need for parity between the three organizations, but when it comes to each of their specific functions, I don’t see the value of parity.  For example, couldn’t parity become a problem with regard to issues related to the naming functions from a naming community point of view?

·         Without in any way criticizing the proposed approach, isn’t the new IANA board a new architectural feature?

·         Has any thought been put into the source of funding?

·         Who would have MOUs with the Post Transition IANA?

·         In the ICANN subsidiary, shared services and free-standing diagrams, why is ICANN shown as one of three elements of the Post Transition IANA Board?

I appreciate the thought that has gone into this.

Chuck

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: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 2:09 PM
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/dbd80272/attachment-0001.html>