[CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process

[Avri Doria]

 Hi,


On 12-May-15 23:52, Donna Austin wrote:
> Hi Avri
>
> I understand this is a work in progress and apologies if my questions are still being worked through.

They are, but they all need discussion and this is the place for that
discussion as I understand it.

>
> In all possible separation review outcomes, would ICANN would still be the 'contractor' for the IANA service? If not, who would be?

I think so.  Have not heard anyone suggest otherwise. 
At least for Names that is.

>
> What is meant by "initiate partial separations, i.e. initiate negotiations with new operational partners". I'm not sure I understand what a partial separation is, and who would initiate negotiations? Is this perhaps a subset of "create an RFP" or vice versa?

Partial was probably bad usage.  What I meant when I first wrote it (i
think it was me) was a change from ICANN as sole owneer of the affiliate
to a possible scenario where one or both of the other operational
partners would be brought into co-ownership.

Personally i still thnik that the strongest accountability for the PTI
is joint ownership with the the Protocl and Numbers operational
communities.  I know that is not something we can recommend, but I would
argue for allowing it among the universe of possible outcomes of a
further separation process.

>
> I'm also not clear what is meant by "initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate" . Is this separation of the IANA affiliate from ICANN to continue to perform the IANA function, or is it separation of the IANA affiliate from ICANN in favour of another provider to be selected through an RFP?

One possibility is that IANA could become a free standing entity, could
be spun out as it were.
Trying to not predetermine this one way or another.

Again insufficient wording.

What this list is trying to do is show various, inter alia,
possibilities that a separation review could decide on.

>
> If it is the former, who would the IANA affiliate be accountable to, ie who would replace ICANN as the contractor?

That would need to be determined at that time.  Recalling that this only
happens in the case of serious precipitating event.

This is one reason why I personally  believe it takes something another
ICG like group to undergo this process and not just another activity for
the IFR.  Any further change in separation should be constrained by the
same sense of sense of general global agreement and the same
requirements for guaranteeing accountability.  The Separation process is
similar to a repeated transition process.

>
> If it is the latter, what would happen to the IANA affiliate? Would it be dissolved in some way?

If ICANN decides to hire an outside group through RFP to do the IANA
function, then like any no longer used subsidiary, it might cease to
exist. 

Of course, while not presupposing outcomes of such a process, we could
also find that names decides to do an RFP , to another  but that
Protocols and Numbers are happy as ICANN customers and stay with the
then status quo.

thanks and apologies for the lack of clarity in the recommendation.

avri


>
> Thanks
>
> Donna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, 11 May 2015 3:19 PM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
>
> Hi,
>
> I did an update on the file.
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
> and attached a pdf version to this note.
>
>   * Received some comments which I tried to include
>   * Responded to Sibley comments, I think
>   * Largely separated the process from who does it
>   * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include:
>       o who dies it:
>           + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR
>             would be designated]
>       o how it is initiated: 
>           + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as
>             approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case
>             of Board rejection via escalation procedure.
>           + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO
>           + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs
>       o method of operation
>           + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made
>             by CWG)
>               #
>
>                 A process initiated in the IFR
>
>               #
>
>                 Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would
>                 follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross
>                 community working groups. In this case the participants
>                 would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
>
>              1.
>
>                 Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the
>                 Separation Review.
>
>              2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and
>                 proportions to include the broader community as this
>                 will affect the entire community.
>
>
> Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour,  but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
>
> avri
>
>       o
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com