[CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Jun 8 16:40:46 UTC 2015 

Matthew,

The IFRTs are not standing bodies, so we would need to either convene a
team for the purpose of the Follow-Up Review (F/UR).  I would suggest
modeling the follow-up review team (F/URT) on the GNSO's Implementation
Review Team concept, i.e., a hold-over team from the SIFRT should conduct
the F/UR.  The F/URT could be the whole SIFRT or a subgroup.  We don't need
a new body, much less a new mechanism.  Such a hold-over team would be
better qualified to conduct a F/UR than a new team.

The alternative is to wait for the next PIFR, which could be too long --
you want a specific check-up to make sure the remediation happened and is
working.

If the PIFR and F/UR would overlap in time, one could fold the F/UR
responsibility into the PIFR -- no need to have a F/UR and a PIFR running
simultaneously.

Greg

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

>  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> 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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:32 PM
>> To: 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>> 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>] 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>
>> >     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>] 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>
>> >     > 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>
>> >     > 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
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://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/20150608/5c8e3bfd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list