[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Feb 20 17:34:04 UTC 2015
Hi,
While the document is fairly stable, conceptually, as of the last PDF I
sent out, I will send out an updated snapshot on Monday that tries to
take into account the questions we are receiving. Some of the questions
show that the document could be clearer. I will also include a snapshot
of any other the other expository docs we are working on.
avri
On 20-Feb-15 12:13, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I would follow on Jonathan & Lise's note and suggest that a "stable"
> draft of this proposal be ready for circulation on Monday, at least 24
> hours before Tuesday's call. It should either be distributed with the
> agenda or with a cover email expressly stating that this will be
> discussed on the Tuesday call and should be reviewed beforehand so
> that we have an informed set of participants.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150220/b7bd846b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list