[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Thanks.  Happy to do so.

avri

On 20-Feb-15 11:56, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>
> 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>
> [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/f9cfc8f0/attachment-0001.html>