[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Avri Doria]

Hi,


On 19-Feb-15 18:13, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Thanks Avri.  Forgive me if this was already discussed by I haven’t
> been able to keep up on this very well. 
>

No it has not been discussed in the CWG yet.  I have hopes for the
future and glad for the present opportunity.

There have been many informal conversations with diverse people, i.e.
anyone we could find free in Singapore and could buttonhole long enough
to explain the model,  but nothing formal.

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

Vetted, no. 

Discussed informally with some participants from those operational
communities, yes.

Two points:

-the first configuration is pretty much an ICANN internal model and
other than being coordinated by the ICG probably does not need a whole
lot of vetting by the other operational communities.

- even the other models do not require a whole lot of change from the
other operational models.  But lining up the operational community's
solutions is the main task of the ICG once we have come up with our
solution.  We were careful to keep changes required by those communities
limited mostly to the degree of control they had over IANA and the
contracting point of contact.

Finally, there are many members of those operational communities on our
lists so hopefully they have been taking a look at it as it was
developing.  We received anonymous comments from many people in the
docs, no idea who most of them were. 

I would not expect any sort of formal answer from the other operational
communities before the CWG has even reviewed it.  At this point this is
just a proposal by an ad hoc, self selected drafting team looking for an
solution to the apparent impasse between the Inside and Outside models.
Something  for all to question and hopefully discuss in an open manner.

Finally we are always happy to talk to those communities and their
members, if they have  an interest that predates a possible CWG decision
to accept this model. As I say, there are representatives of those
communities on this list and I would be happy to hear from them.  As
would our my partners in this project, though they are more taciturn
than I am, and have given me leave to use the word  'we'  (though be
assured they will correct me anytime I step wrong).

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

Because in any of the configurations of the model there is a degree of
separation. The fully owned subsidiary confirguartion does include full
structural separation into the subsidiary.  Often the interface, in
cases of an fully owned entity,  is an SLA/MOU.  One of the stresses for
the Outside model people in the CWG is that fact the the relationship
between the ICANN operational community and IANA has no externalized
rigor.  SLAs/MOUs between a parent company and a subsidiary are one way
to establish such a controlled relationship.

So even in the fully owned subsidiary of ICANN, it is possible for
ICANN, the parent company, to establish SLA and MOUs with its Post
Transition IANA (PTI) subsidiary.

In the Shared Service Arrangement, ICANN would be one of 3 operational
community joint owners* establishing  SLA/MOUs with their jointly owned
subsidiary.

> ·         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?
>

The CSC, in support of its SLAs with recourse to the IAP is the main
point for naming community issues. The only parity issues there might be
those within the CSC in terms of Registry priority within that committee
and the balance within ICANN's PTI Board representation.

The Post Transition IANA (PTI) Board function is limited to IANA
internal operational issues, finances and exception processing.

By the time an issue gets passed the IAP, which I personally hope has
binding arbitration capabilities, to the Board of the PTI as an
exception processing issue, it is one that would probably be broader
that just a naming community issue and warrant the check and balances a
board with full parity brings.

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

Criticism is fine, this is an out of the box proposal meant to solve a
nearly intractable problem amongst the Inside model, the Outside model
and Republicans in the US congress.  If it can't deal with criticism it
isn't going to get very far.  Criticism is the fuel of improvement. And
this model, as all models, needs improvement only broader discussions,
i.e. criticism, self criticism and further work, can bring.

Yes the model includes  new architectural features, just as the CSC, MRT
and IAP are.  In fact it is a variation on the mainstream theme, though
like in the internal models, the Contract Co has been eliminated, so one
less new feature to deal with.

But indeed it does need meet the accountability test that Strickling
mentioned for new components. 

Working on a draft on that now. Pretty close too, just waitng for one of
the team to get back from vacation and check it out before opening it up
for wider criticism and discussion.

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

Yes.

In the wholly own subsidiary, ICANN subsidizes, as it owns it. Really no
diffferent that it does now, just with a more transparent and specific
budget.

In the Shared Service Arrangements, it is shared between the owners
(IETF/IAB/ISOC, ICANN & RIRs/NRO) in some way they agree on.  I
understand that the numbers community already contributes a significiant
sum to ICANN operations, perhaps some part of it is intended for IANA
operations and would be redirected.  As for the protocol community, I
expect the others would continue to carry them given their nature as a
subsidized volunteer group that takes in no income but which remains
critical to the IANA ecosystem and the Internet itself.

In the Free Standing configuration, I haven't really thought about
funding, though perhaps others in the team have. I would assume a model
that included startup investment from the operational communities, and
perhaps others, and the development of a fund raising, or income
producing, strategy by its Board.  Just like any other free standing
company.  I think anyone who championed that confdiguration would need
to get mode specific on those details. 

> ·         Who would have MOUs with the Post Transition IANA?
>

They would be between Post Transition IANA (PTI) and each its customers:
IETF/IAB/ISOC, ICANN, &  RIRs/NRO
Not sure what you mean by "who holds them?"

I suppose in the fully subsidized configuration, the parent compnay
ICANN could still hold the SLA/MOUs the for the protocol and number
operational communities, if they wanted to continue contracting with
ICANN instead of PTI.  This would require a slight variation on the
subsidiary configuration, but could be defined.  Ie. ICANN would remain
repsonsble for meeting the SLA, and it would use its fully own IANA
subsidiary to do the work.

> ·         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?
>

The Board is made up of the three operational communities, each of which
brings it paticualr multstakeholder mix to the table.  ICANN, our CWG
community,  is one of the 3 operational communities and thus should
bring its multistakeholder mix to the PTI Board.

> I appreciate the thought that has gone into this.
>

And I yours.

Thanks
avri

* The model also allows for separate SLA/MOUS with the the non
participating ccTLDs if necessary - the the PTI Board makes no
accommodation for that at this point - a complexity we did not tackle. 
The model is based on the notion that each of the operational
communities internalizes its own multistakeholder churn, but we
recognize that some of the churn cannot always be internalized.

>  
>
> 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/20150220/d0c9f4cb/attachment-0001.html>