[CWG-Stewardship] RySG analysis of public comments
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Jan 9 21:10:13 UTC 2015
Reminded me of quote often repeated by an architect friend:
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left
to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Attributed to
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
On 09-Jan-15 13:32, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> Important re: too complex.
>
> I read all the comments and from those talking about it being too
> complex came three things:
>
> 1. That there were too many interconnections between the four
> structures. The CSC recommends to the MRT that you may need the IAP
> and so on. Way too much unnecessary process.
>
> 2. That the structures as defined (or not defined) would create a
> whole other set of processes: how members were selected, what their
> charter and rules and methods would be, and so on. Far simpler, for
> example, would be to say: the IAP aspect will be filed by the ICC (as
> it already does ICANN-style arbitration); the CSC will be formed by
> the GNSO and ccNSO; the MRT will be created on the same lines as, say,
> the ATRT i.e. let's not create yet more new processes; stop
> reinventing the wheel.
>
> 3. That all the roles outlined weren't actually needed. The MRT
> doesn't need to be there all the time since 99.9 percent of IANA
> transactions simply happen without a fuss. You don't need a whole new
> CSC body because they are already largely organized in other places.
> That the IAP may not be necessary at all because various review and
> appeal mechanisms already exist.
>
> So this is what people meant by "too complex" and I think this group
> should really consider those remarks.
>
> The ICANN community does have a tendency to over-engineer its policy
> processes and build new bodies for every new issue. I think the
> comments were saying: hold on there, take a step back and figure out
> whether all this is really needed in reality or if we're building
> policy castles in the sky.
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> 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 <tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655>
>> *P* +61 3 9866 3710 <tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710>
>> *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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655>
>> *P* +61 3 9866 3710 <tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710>
>> *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 <tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655>
>> *P* +61 3 9866 3710 <tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710>
>> *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 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2623> *Mobile:
>> *+1.703.731.2040 <tel:%2B1.703.731.2040> *Fax:
>> *+1.202.533.2623 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2623>*/*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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150109/bd8cc06f/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/bd8cc06f/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list