[CWG-Stewardship] FW: CWG Comments

Tue May 26 16:24:33 UTC 2015

Forwarding at the request of Eberhard Lisse

On 5/21/15, 9:50 AM, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el at lisse.na> wrote:

>
>Dear Grace,
>
>since I have in my comment to the CWG 2nd Draft Proposal quoted from
>the email below posted to the ISTACC list, the archive of which
>currently seems to be not open to the public (though this is being
>looked into), I would request that this email be posted onto the
>main public CWG list on my behalf.
>
>
>greetings, el
>
>
>
>Message received 2015-05-08 15:26:44:
>
>> DATE: 2015-05-08 15:26:44
>> FROM: Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane at icb.co.uk>
>> TO: Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>,istacc at icann.org
>><istacc at icann.org>
>> SUBJECT: Re: [ISTACC] IANA workflow
>> MAILBOX: el at windhoek.omadhina.co.na/INBOX.mbox
>>
>> Thanks Byron
>>
>> It was agreed that the SLA that IANA has with NTIA does not
>> capture the process post NTIA's involvement.
>> Further, when IANA were negotiating with NTIA a significantly more
>> professional and prescriptive SLA was proposed by IANA but
>> apparently NTIA did not want to be too specific as it clarified
>> the roles of each party and their performance in too much detail.
>> Consequently a vague SLA was agreed but with NTIA potentially out
>> of the picture we can have that professional SLE now.
>>
>> Consequently, extensive review of current practice has been
>> undertaken using 565 data points from information published by
>> IANA and also interactions with Registry Managers to ascertain
>> actual performance (which is quite good and uses a modified eIANA
>> software platform).  Using best practice processes we captured the
>> performance of the current work flow in the following:
>> 
>>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statistica
>>l-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003475000&api=v2
>>
>> This was encapsulated in a simplified flow chart
>> 
>>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/IANA%20update%2
>>0Flowchart%20DRAFT.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003491000&api=v2
>>
>> We were then advised that the workflow did not capture those
>> Registries that interact via fax or telephone - so we asked IANA
>> to provide the work flow for those scenarios, which they said they
>> would do, then we hit ICANN legal apparently citing the need to
>> obtain NTIA approval prior to releasing the workflow diagrams to
>> us.  Which is where we are now.
>>
>> I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the
>> information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the
>> performance of their systems - but that is trivial, two days of a
>> competent programmers time would provide the required matrices)
>>
>> Elise has kindly agreed to have another call, but we agreed to
>> wait until the current detailed practice workflow documents are
>> available to the group...  even if that requires specific NDAs
>> with the Design Team members.
>>
>> The really frustrating thing we just want a professional and fit
>> for purpose SLE (that is standard practice in today's environment)
>> and are being "fobbed off" with "national security" issues - and
>> if ICANN requires a classified meeting a number of the Design Team
>> members are cleared for Classified national security discussions
>> to the category "Top Secret".
>>
>> Please note: we are not proposing the IANA SLE requires the same
>> performance standards that ICANN expects from gTLD Registries but
>> rather an SLE that captures the current detailed workflow and the
>> actual performance delivered by IANA.
>>
>> Hope this is helpful
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> ....
>>
>> Byron Holland wrote:
>> > Hi Paul,
>> > I followed up on the IANA workflow issue you mentioned on the
>> > last call.
>> > Emergency processes are published in the ICANN proposal for the
>> > IANA functions contract.
>> > 
>>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_pa
>>rt_1_of_3.pdf
>> > It is on pages 117 and 118 of Volume 1.  The easiest way to find
>> > it is to search on 24x7.
>> > They indicated that on April 7, 2015, a request was made for
>> > ICANN to provide â€œall work-flow process documents with
>> > accompanying performance statistics for each stage of the IANA
>> > Root Zone Management functionâ€?.  They have been working on
>> > compiling and reviewing that documentation to fulfill the
>> > request.
>> > In the meantime, it was suggested that this is a good place to
>> > start.  Please see pages 31 and 113.
>> > 
>>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_pa
>>rt_1_of_3.pdf
>> > I have been assured that Elise and members of her team are
>> > available to participate in CWG team discussions if called upon.
>> > Hope that helps,
>> > Byron
>> > **
>> > **
>> > *Byron Holland*, President & CEO
>> > Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA)
>> > Twitter: @cira001 <mailto:@cira001>
>> > Trends, Commentary, Perspective. Stay tuned to cirablog.ca
>> > <http://www.cirablog.ca/>
>> > www.cira.ca <http://www.cira.ca/>
>> > BSME_2015colour
>> _______________________________________________
>> Istacc mailing list
>> Istacc at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/istacc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 829 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150526/6694e5f8/signature.asc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150526/6694e5f8/smime.p7s>