[CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process

Fri May 15 04:36:31 UTC 2015

Hi Alan,

The RIR in it's proposal has indicated it would prefer to sign it's
agreement with ICANN directly (most likely IETF would do the same). Both
contracts allows either party to withdraw their service based on defined
notice period.
So yes, such move by RIR for instance would practically mean that the last
N of ICANN is no longer in operation. ASO is currently there because there
is an agreement between ICANN and NRO and I don't expect that agreement to
survive if ICANN no longer operates numbers part of the function.

That said, with respect to Avri's writeup, I am also wondering what the
full separation of affiliate mean since I now understand affiliate to mean
an entity not "owned" by ICANN. If there is going to be any further
separation, I would think initiating an RFP process and moving the function
to another operator would be the case; ICANN is now the steward not PTI

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
 I don't think that is quite correct. Certainly, with or without ICANN
moving the RZM away from the current IANA, the IETF and RIRs could in
theory decide to stop using IANA and move their registries to TGNIITS (The
Great New IANA in the Sky).

I do not know the implication of the RIRs moving to TGNIITS. We still have
the ASO in ICANN, and they still in theory recommend address policy to the
ICANN Board. It is less clear whether the RIR agreement with TGNIITS
requires them to abide by ICANN directives related to addresses. If it
does, it is still business as usual for us. If the new agreement with
TGNIITS does NOT require adherance to our policy, then it would be
interesting who they have replacing us.

So the question is less about separation and more on whose authority are we
doing what we are now doing. And I don't think there is a real answer other
than one based on history.

But I do not think that it truly hinges on where the current IANA function
resides, as long as the other agreements, written and more importantly
unwritten, do not change.

Alan

At 14/05/2015 10:02 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:

Hi, Alan.

In your scenario: IFO for names moves to another entity with ICANN
retaining "stewardship".

Numbers and Protocol Parameters communities have options to consider (i.e.,
follow or don't follow).

If they do not follow (and assuming they do not stay with ICANN either),
ICANN's mission fundamentally changes and ICANN would become ICAN.

Is this correct as a possible outcome of this separation?

Rinalia
On May 15, 2015 8:21 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
 My understanding is that "separation" changes who the IANA Function
Operator is and possibly the specifics of how it is connected to ICANN. But
ICANN remains the steward of the function.
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On May 14, 2015 7:35:12 PM EDT, Eduardo Diaz < eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
wrote:
 Avri:

The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO.
Is this correct?

-ed

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
 hi,

On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Avri,
>
> Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the
ICANN board?

That is one of the questions asked?
Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action.
Isn't it part of the check and balances.  And if they don't agree isn't
that why we have the various redress mechanisms?

>
> The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of
the IANA affiliate".  Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?

Yes.  one of the option in the various models we discussed was an
independent free standing PTI  depending on the circumstances, this
might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider.
As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the
type of decision they might need to take.

avri

>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 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

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

-- 
NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

------------------------------

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150515/c63d7b49/attachment.html>