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

Thu May 7 11:29:55 UTC 2015

I agree that from the point of decision to separate to selection of a new contractor the process needs to be quick, subject to doing a good job.  

However, between the IFR's "let's have an RfP" and the development of an RfP there is a crucial step - that of adoption of the recommendation (which does need some formal process, *including consultation*) that triggers the process, the next steps of which, as appropriate, the development of the RfP.

While I do not want to put in unnecessary bureaucracy, I am allergic to small and possibly unaccountable (or hard to hold to account) groups making fundamental changes without wider engagement.  If the IFR has done its job well, it has got the feel of the wider community and the decision process then becomes much easier.

In other words, I would only see a process dragging out if there were little real cross community consensus, in which case it would be better to work on other ways of addressing issues.  Using bureaucracy to delay is not a good solution because it is time-wasting, frustrating for everyone and prevents resolution of serious issues:  the consensus decision needs to be made first.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: 06 May 2015 23:48
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'avri at acm.org'; 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process

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
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship