[CWG-Stewardship] RySG analysis of public comments
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Jan 9 17:10:17 UTC 2015
Hi,
I have no problem seeing both of these as possibly be true
simultaneously - I see no paradox.
One can argue that the set of entities Contract Co, Contract holder,
CSC, IANA, IAP, MRT, and the interconnections between them makes for a
complex architecture. And if one beleives that it is more complex than
necessary to fulfill the IANA transition requirements, then it may be
said that it is too complex.
While also realizing that we have a ways to go, especially at the time
the report was put out, defining the details of the entities and the
nature of the communication and responsibility interfaces between those
entities.
Complexity without enough detail.
avri
On 09-Jan-15 11:53, Donna Austin wrote:
>
> Milton,
>
>
>
> Based on our analysis, there were a significant number of comments
> that said the proposal was too complex and paradoxically the were also
> a significant number of comments that said the proposal lacked detail.
> We’re just reflecting what we read in the comments.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo*D**ONNA AUSTIN*
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager**
>
>
>
> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES*
> Melbourne*|*Los Angeles
> *P* +1 310 890 9655
> *P* +61 3 9866 3710
> *E** *donna.austin at ariservices.com <mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>_
> _*W** *www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
>
>
>
> /Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
>
>
>
> /The information contained in this communication is intended for the
> named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain
> legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an
> intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any
> action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in
> error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us
> immediately./
>
>
>
> *From:*Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> *Sent:* Friday, 9 January 2015 12:40 AM
> *To:* Kieren McCarthy; Donna Austin
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG analysis of public comments
>
>
>
> I think the RySG did a good job of summarizing the comments from their
> point of view, but I can’t agree with one of their conclusions as to
> what should guide future efforts: the proposal is “too complex.”
>
>
>
> The statement that a proposal is “too complex” implies that one could
> develop a proposal that does the same things and has the same
> safeguards and is less complex.
>
>
>
> My response to that is: show me.
>
>
>
> We have already seen ALAC try and completely fail to deliver an
> alternative solution that is less complex.
>
>
>
> The “too complex” charge strikes me as one of those things that one
> would say after one’s first confrontation with the proposal. It was my
> first reaction, too. It is very easy to say, it is a kind of
> superficial response. The real issue is, however: what proposal is
> less complex, and how would it work? Until we have real, complete
> alternate proposals on the table the characterization of one proposal
> as “complex” is not very meaningful.
>
>
>
> If you think the status quo is not complex, you don’t understand what
> goes on in the current regime. The NTIA is embedded in the US
> government in a highly complex way; nothing simple about it.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 8, 2015 11:44 PM
> *To:* Donna Austin
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG analysis of public comments
>
>
>
> For what it's worth, I think this is a useful and succinct summary.
>
>
>
> I'm not entirely sure why the ALAC proposal has been highlighted twice
> when no other submissions have been specifically mentioned and there
> were other proposals. But apart from that this seems like a good path
> forward to me.
>
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
> -
> [sent through phone]
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Donna Austin
> <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com <mailto:Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>>
> wrote:
>
> All
>
>
>
> In the interests of sharing, a group of RySG members conducted our
> own analysis of the comments submitted on the CWG Transition
> Proposal. Provided below are our conclusions and recommendations
> for next steps. Also attached is a document we prepared containing
> key excerpts of comments as they relate to various aspects of the
> proposal.
>
>
>
> Please accept this information in the spirit that it is
> offered—not as authoritative but as the result of an analysis
> developed by the RySG for our own purposes.
>
>
>
> We (Chuck, Stephanie, Sarah and myself) will be happy to answer
> any questions.
>
>
>
> *RySG IANA CWG Team Conclusions regarding ongoing work of the IANA
> CWG*
>
>
>
> The RySG believes that the following statements have very strong
> support in the community and hence can be used to guide future
> decisions by the CWG:
>
> A. The current service of the IANA functions operator is
> satisfactory and ICANN should initially continue as the operator
> when the transition occurs.
>
> B. The IANA CWG proposal as described in the request for
> public comments is too complex and does not contain enough detail.
>
> Of the four elements of the proposed IANA CWG proposal, there
> appears to be reasonable support for the CSC, MRT and IAP in some
> form, although not necessarily as described in the CWG proposal.
>
> The RySG believes that the following statements need further
> investigation and/or indicate areas where additional work is
> warranted:
>
> i. The overall structure of the CWG proposal.
>
> ii. Contract Co.
>
> iii. Internal to ICANN option
>
> *RySG IANA CWG Team Recommendations regarding Next Steps*
>
> 1. Suggestions made by commenters should be evaluated based
> on the following criteria to identify which ones should be
> excluded, which ones should definitely be considered further and
> which ones need further investigation:
>
> a. CWG principles
>
> b. Would they contribute toward a simpler proposal?
>
> c. Results of the two surveys.
>
>
>
> 2. All alternatives to the CWG proposal should be examined
> in detail, not just the one proposed by the ALAC, to identify what
> alternatives or elements of the alternatives should be
> investigated further.
>
> 3. An extension of the targeted time frame of at least 60
> days should be requested from the ICG to allow for continued work
> and an additional public comment period after reasonable consensus
> is reached on a proposal for submission to the chartering SOs and ACs.
>
> 4. The work of the IANA CWG and Accountability CCWG are
> properly dependent. The IANA CWG should have the opportunity to
> revisit the CWG Proposal, ALAC alternative, and other options once
> the outputs of Workstream 1 of the Accountability CCWG are
> provided and consider the implications for accountability as it
> relates to the performance of the IANA Functions.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> <image002.png>
>
> *DONNA AUSTIN*
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager**
>
>
>
> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES*
> Melbourne*|*Los Angeles
> *P* +1 310 890 9655
> *P* +61 3 9866 3710
> *E *donna.austin at ariservices.com
> <mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>_
> _*W *www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
>
>
>
> /Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
>
>
>
> /The information contained in this communication is intended for
> the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may
> contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you
> are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute
> or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this
> communication in error, please delete all copies from your system
> and notify us immediately./
>
>
>
> *From:*Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 January 2015 4:25 PM
> *To:* Donna Austin; Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey';
> rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> Thanks to all three of you for the good edits. The first
> attachment is a redline that includes a couple edits I made to the
> second paragraph and a comment I added on page 3 regarding the
> fact that the last two sections will be sent to the CWG list.
> Please let me know if you see any problems. I also attached a
> clean copy.
>
>
>
> The third document attached is a final version of our excerpts.
> Note I added an introduction.
>
>
>
> Donna – As our official rep, I think it would be good if you sent
> the documents as follows:
>
> · To the RySG & NTAG lists:
>
> o Clean version of the analysis
>
> o Excerpts document
>
> · To the CWG list:
>
> o The last two paragraphs of the analysis.
>
> o The excerpts document.
>
>
>
> Can you do that?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:*Donna Austin [mailto:Donna.Austin at ariservices.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 08, 2015 4:24 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey';
> rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc
>
>
>
> I added the ‘internal to ICANN option’ as worthy of further
> consideration.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> <image002.png>
>
> *DONNA AUSTIN*
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager**
>
>
>
> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES*
> Melbourne*|*Los Angeles
> *P* +1 310 890 9655
> *P* +61 3 9866 3710
> *E *donna.austin at ariservices.com
> <mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>_
> _*W *www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
>
>
>
> /Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
>
>
>
> /The information contained in this communication is intended for
> the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may
> contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you
> are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute
> or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this
> communication in error, please delete all copies from your system
> and notify us immediately./
>
>
>
> *From:*rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com]
> <mailto:%5Bmailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com%5D>
> *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 January 2015 11:58 AM
> *To:* Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'King, Stacey';
> rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc
>
>
>
> Thanks to both of you. I will hold off a couple hours before
> finalizing and distributing.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:*rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Duchesneau, Stephanie
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:15 PM
> *To:* 'King, Stacey'; rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* RE: Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc
>
>
>
> Thanks Stacy. Took a stab at tweaking/shortening a bit. I changed
> the recommendation slightly to provide the opportunity to actually
> revisit the proposals once WS 1 outputs are published. Please
> advise if this is not what we want. Also added revisiting other
> alternatives.
>
>
>
> *Stephanie Duchesneau**
> **Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
> *Office:***+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax:
> *+1.202.533.2623*/*www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The information contained in this email message is intended only
> for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain
> confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the
> intended recipient you have received this email message in error
> and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
> message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete
> the original message.
>
>
>
> *From:*rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com]
> <mailto:%5Bmailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com%5D>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 08, 2015 1:04 PM
> *To:* rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Couple of Edits - Analysis Doc
>
>
>
> Okay….fairly wordy and it needs your edits, but here is my
> suggestion for basic language.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to
> rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to
> rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/595A876BF19C5C458A53C0D386E5414F1C8D2AF3%40ex10-mbx-31006.ant.amazon.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_rysg-2Diana-2Dtransition-2Dcwg_595A876BF19C5C458A53C0D386E5414F1C8D2AF3-2540ex10-2Dmbx-2D31006.ant.amazon.com-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooter&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=0hsxJJjdrXRgjayVdcz_CARI78PKqWTRtnf4a8uMAWU&m=0DsDmT98XttFRsOyv55fi8Td5qmSFX7d1zUh3xxIBks&s=etH7Oos-l1VFI7B1WcwPmYZGRQFaVnsXQa3iHRyT0Ks&e=>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=0hsxJJjdrXRgjayVdcz_CARI78PKqWTRtnf4a8uMAWU&m=0DsDmT98XttFRsOyv55fi8Td5qmSFX7d1zUh3xxIBks&s=lUjTQeDlMnEwaUhtFKPdauw0FX-_SY_xwsAu-F7tU9E&e=>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to
> rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to
> rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/EEBCBBF122EB65469AF478BFB0BDBDD8527522%40STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/EEBCBBF122EB65469AF478BFB0BDBDD8527522%40STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "RySG IANA Transition CWG" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to
> rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to
> rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rysg-iana-transition-cwg at googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E494C4275%40BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rysg-iana-transition-cwg/6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E494C4275%40BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> <IANA CWG Public Comments Key Excerpts from the RySG - 8 Jan 15.docx>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> 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/20150109/75326a9b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150109/75326a9b/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list