[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

Fri Feb 20 16:56:27 UTC 2015

Avri and CWG members / participants,

Lise and I discussed this and we propose to have this as a substantive agenda item at the CWG call on Tuesday.

I suggest that you come prepared to present the thinking and rationale behind the model and the CWG members / participants come prepared to question / discuss.

Thanks,

Jonathan

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] 
Sent: 20 February 2015 15:32
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 2:09 PM
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/20150220/e7bf990a/attachment-0001.html>