[CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process

Wed May 6 22:48:23 UTC 2015

I think this is getting way too complex. 
The IFR should basically produce two types of outcomes. 
* One is on the order of: change this, fix that. PTI either does that satisfactorily or not, CSC follows up.
* The other is: things are not so great, it may be time to change providers, let's have an RFP. 

The notion of a lengthy and costly review process in turn triggering a new "separation review" which in turn recommends an RFP which in turn  triggers an RFP development and selection process strikes me as self-evidently absurd. I know I am more constitutionally allergic to bureaucracy than most people but surely even normal people might find this a bit too much. 

Justice delayed is justice denied. Accountability delayed is accountability denied.  If the process for addressing serious problems in PTI performance drags on for 7 years (IFR + SR + RFP) or more, there is no real accountability. The process can be gamed to death, among other things. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 11:54 AM
> To: avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background
> note on Separability Process
> 
> I personally agree with Avri that the IFR is "a review group not a
> solution group".  I think the solution options should be predefined as
> well as an escalation process for choosing solutions.
> 
> One term I am not comfortable with for IFR is 'minimalist' registry.
> Without disagreeing with the multi-stakeholder composition of the
> IFRT, I don't think the direct customers of the IANA services should
> ever be in a 'minimalist' position at least as I understand that term.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:39 AM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background
> note on Separability Process
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yes, I recognize the question, that has been your question since the
> beginning.
> 
> In terms of my original proposal that they be different processes, I
> think they are different activities:
> 
> - one does an analysis of the situation and makes a recommendation
> that something further needs to be done.  It is a review group not a
> solution group.  Most of the time the IFR will be doing the regular
> cyclical review and making other kinds of recommendation.  But it may
> happen that they raise an alarm about things being untenable and the
> Separability Process needs to be entered.
> 
> - one takes an recommendations and requirements develops and
> executes a solution
> 
> I see reasons for the process separation in different mindsets,
> different skillset, division of labor, check and balances ...
> 
> Also we are talking about minimalist registry-heavy multistakeholder
> IFR
> Team.   I think that a Separability Process would be a major event that
> would need to be handled on the scale of a CWG Transition  event or
> maybe even on the level of an ICG Transition event and not the scale
> of periodic review team.  If we enter a further separation phase the
> world might care. And while we cannot presuppose anything about the
> Protocol and Numbers committees, we might find they care and want
> to participate in the consideration.
> 
> But to tell the truth, as time goes on, I find i care less and less about
> these details.  It can work either way, I am sure.  It is all fungible
> process pieces.  So if the consensus is that it should be part of the IFR
> process I am sure it can be fashioned.
> 
> Note, we might need to be careful that each IFR does not require, to
> some extent,  a determination on whether an RFP is needed or not.
> Unless of course we want every IFR to review with RFP in mind.  I had
> been thinking of the IFR as less determined than that.
> 
> Others who contributed to the original text may have additional or
> other views on the topic
> 
> avri
> 
> drive doc on separation process
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-
> gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
> 
> On 06-May-15 08:36, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> >
> > Avri,
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination
> > on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
> >
> >
> >
> > Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3^rd May 2015, I noted the
> > following point:
> >
> >
> >
> > */Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a
> > “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the
> many
> > recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit
> of a
> > separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR?
> > This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and
> mechanism as
> > that is pending further CWG discussion.]/*
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an
> answer
> > to the question above or point to where it has already been
> answered
> > or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental
> > process to the IFR.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
> > *Sent:* 02 May 2015 20:02
> > *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> > *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background
> note on
> > Separability Process
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > *Action item*: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation
> > mechanism
> >
> > A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at:
> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-
> kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghM
> > YLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
> >
> > This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has
> become
> > my habit in this project.
> >
> > I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability
> > Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion
> based
> > around affiliates and the like.
> >
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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