[CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Mon Jun 8 14:53:49 UTC 2015
Thanks Greg - I think this makes sense. On the Follow-up Reviews, I
agree that the PIFR should not be accelerated to do it, but why wouldn't
IFR still undertake the review? I don't think we should be creating a
new body to do so.
On 6/8/2015 10:42 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> My suggestion is that the periodic IFRs should stay on the same
> schedule (like Olympics or World Cups or Presidential elections)
> regardless of any SIFRs. So, if the transition takes places in 2015,
> the first (2 year) IFR would take place in 2017, and then every 5
> years thereafter (in this example, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, etc.),
> unless a new IFO is put in place, replacing PTI. In this case, the
> clock should reset, so that there is a 2 year IFR, followed by
> successive 5 year IFRs (as above).
>
> *Follow-up Reviews: *SIFRs are different than PIFRs because they are
> triggered by a material deficiency, and they are aimed at resolving
> that deficiency. Therefore, I suggest that after a SIFR (or a SCWG
> that does not result in a new IFO), a targeted follow-up should take
> place to determine whether the deficiency was in fact satisfactorily
> resolved. A full PIFR is not the right tool to do so, and should not
> be accelerated to serve as such. I would suggest that this Follow-up
> Review should take place 1 year after the end of the SIFR or SCWG process.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
>
> I definitely think we should keep it as simple as possible and
> maybe having the SCWG make recommendations as to any clock
> resetting is one way to keep it simpler. I definitely don't think
> that periodic reviews should ever happen less frequently than
> every five years.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto: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: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:32 PM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits
> due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
>
> Hi,
>
> that was exactly what I proposed.
>
> SCWG -> reset IFR timer.
>
> cheers
>
> avri
>
>
> On 07-Jun-15 18:30, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > I think we are complicating things with the timing of reviews. It
> > will be more predictable to have the periodic reviews stay on
> > schedule, regardless of a SIFR. I would suggest that the next
> > periodic IFR (PIFR?) after a SIFR should specifically examine
> whether
> > the remediation that came out of the SIFR continued to work in a
> > satisfactory manner.
> >
> > The only exception would be if a SIFR resulting in SCWG and
> ultimately
> > in a new IFO (replacing PTI). In this case, the new IFO should be
> > subject to a PIFR two years after commencing operations.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 12:45 PM, James Gannon
> <james at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>
> > <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net
> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>> wrote:
> >
> > I would support the SCWG making a recommendation on it as the
> > landscape may change post an SCWG depending on the outcome. The
> > SCWG would be in the best position to make an informed fact
> based
> > decision at that time rather than us making it based on
> > hypotheticals now.
> >
> > -James
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>>
> > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto: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: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM
> > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits
> > due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Sorry for the confusion.
> >
> > I was asking whether we consider resetting the IFR timer for
> post
> > SCWG.
> >
> > We had the conversation about post SIFR and lots of
> arguments were
> > made both ways, with neither prevailing; so I left that
> issue alone.
> >
> > The idea about doing it post SCWG, is that even if the SCWG were
> > to result in no-change, whatever would have been going on at the
> > time, would have been serious enough for the SCWG to have been
> > triggered. It therefore seems that this would be a good time to
> > rest the clock back to time 0 (i.e. this transition).
> >
> > On the other hand, perhaps this decision could be left to
> the SCWG
> > to recommend, just as a SIFR or IFR could recommend a
> changed timing.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 07-Jun-15 11:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > Avri,
> > >
> > > Regarding the clock for periodic IFRs related to SIFRs, let me
> > make sure I understand what you are suggesting. Am I
> correct that
> > you are suggesting that after an SIFR the entire clock would be
> > reset so that the next periodic IFR would occur two years later
> > and then the (no more than) 5 year periodic review cycle would
> > kick in again? If so, then the only concern I have is a
> situation
> > illustration by this possible scenario:
> > > - The initial 2-year periodic review happens.
> > > - A SIFR occurs 4 years after the initial 2-year
> periodic
> > review.
> > > - A new 2-year periodic review happens 2 years after
> the SIFR.
> > > In this case there would be six years or more between periodic
> > reviews, which would violate our intent that periodic reviews
> > occur no less frequently than five years.
> > >
> > > Because periodic review cover items different than in SIFRs, I
> > think we should fix this, assuming I am understanding your
> > recommendation correctly, and I think it should be easily
> fixable
> > with some adjustments to wording. Would a qualifier, like the
> > following work: "In case an SIFR occurs close to the end of a
> > 5-year period after the last periodic review, the periodic
> review
> > should still occur and a 2-year periodic review should occur
> after
> > the 5-year periodic review."
> > >
> > > I am not sure my qualifying language is the best but I at
> least
> > wanted to try to suggest something.
> > >
> > > Hope this makes sense but if it doesn't please let me know.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>>
> > > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto: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: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM
> > > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
> > > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 --
> Edits
> > due on
> > > Sunday at 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On a partial reread, I have the following comments.
> > > I do agree with Grace's comment that we are almost there.
> > >
> > > On 05-Jun-15 00:07, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes
> the edits
> > >> listed below. *Your comments are requested and welcome
> until Sunday
> > >> 23:59 UTC.* If you don't have time to read the whole
> proposal, I've
> > >> highlighted specific areas in the document that require
> feedback.
> > >> * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about
> status of
> > >> footnote
> > >>
> > > - i do not understand footnote 51 in the context of the
> current
> > report. It is a vestige of a time before we discussed the
> IFR in
> > detail. I think it should be removed.
> > >
> > >> * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri
> perhaps?)
> > >>
> > > seems fine to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Does Annex H need to change based on changes made
> in para 133
> > >
> > > --- An issue we discussed but not sure we closed on.
> > >
> > > IFR Clock reset after any SCWG. (and understanding that we
> > could not
> > > come to consensus of changing the periodicity after an SIFR)
> > >
> > > I think we need to reset the clock after any SCWG, no
> matter what
> > > outcome it may select. If something was important enough
> to warrant
> > > an SCWG, its outcome needs to be reviewed 2 years later - even
> > in case
> > > of a decision of no change)
> > >
> > > this would require changing: 299 top row 2nd col.
> > >
> > >> Initially, two years, then moving to every five years
> > >>
> > > to
> > >
> > > Initially and after an SCWG, two years, then moving to an
> > interval of
> > > no more than five years
> > >
> > > (the second bit for consistency with other word in the doc)
> > >
> > > It might also require insertion of something like the
> following
> > after
> > > 126 & 385
> > >
> > > # After the completion of a SCWG process, the IFR periodic
> clock
> > will be reset to its initial state of first IFR after 2 years
> > followed by a period of no more that five years for
> subsequent IFR.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > avri
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> software.
> > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>>
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150608/b035fcd7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list