<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
While the document is fairly stable, conceptually, as of the last
PDF I sent out, I will send out an updated snapshot on Monday that
tries to take into account the questions we are receiving. Some of
the questions show that the document could be clearer. I will also
include a snapshot of any other the other expository docs we are
working on.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20-Feb-15 12:13, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURDAT6=mzp9Cvg=xPrsf69m3TwCOuysi-9kyDAjOZsz1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">I would follow on Jonathan & Lise's note and
suggest that a "stable" draft of this proposal be ready for
circulation on Monday, at least 24 hours before Tuesday's call.
It should either be distributed with the agenda or with a cover
email expressly stating that this will be discussed on the
Tuesday call and should be reviewed beforehand so that we have
an informed set of participants.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Greg</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Avri
Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div> Hi,<br>
<br>
Thanks. Happy to do so.<span class="HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
avri</span>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>On 20-Feb-15 11:56, Jonathan Robinson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Avri and CWG members /
participants,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Lise and I discussed
this and we propose to have this as a
substantive agenda item at the CWG call on
Tuesday.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I suggest that you come
prepared to present the thinking and rationale
behind the model and the CWG members /
participants come prepared to question /
discuss.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thanks,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Jonathan</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
lang="EN-US"> Avri Doria [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org"
target="_blank">mailto:avri@acm.org</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 20 February 2015 15:32<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"
target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship]
Update on the Integrated model.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 19-Feb-15 18:13, Gomes,
Chuck wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks Avri. Forgive me
if this was already discussed by I haven’t
been able to keep up on this very well. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
No it has not been discussed in the CWG yet. I
have hopes for the future and glad for the
present opportunity.<br>
<br>
There have been many informal conversations with
diverse people, i.e. anyone we could find free
in Singapore and could buttonhole long enough to
explain the model, but nothing formal.<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p>· Has this approach been vetted with
the protocol and numbers communities?</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Vetted, no. <br>
<br>
Discussed informally with some participants from
those operational communities, yes.<br>
<br>
Two points:<br>
<br>
-the first configuration is pretty much an ICANN
internal model and other than being coordinated
by the ICG probably does not need a whole lot of
vetting by the other operational communities.<br>
<br>
- even the other models do not require a whole
lot of change from the other operational
models. But lining up the operational
community's solutions is the main task of the
ICG once we have come up with our solution. We
were careful to keep changes required by those
communities limited mostly to the degree of
control they had over IANA and the contracting
point of contact.<br>
<br>
Finally, there are many members of those
operational communities on our lists so
hopefully they have been taking a look at it as
it was developing. We received anonymous
comments from many people in the docs, no idea
who most of them were. <br>
<br>
I would not expect any sort of formal answer
from the other operational communities before
the CWG has even reviewed it. At this point
this is just a proposal by an ad hoc, self
selected drafting team looking for an solution
to the apparent impasse between the Inside and
Outside models. Something for all to question
and hopefully discuss in an open manner.<br>
<br>
Finally we are always happy to talk to those
communities and their members, if they have an
interest that predates a possible CWG decision
to accept this model. As I say, there are
representatives of those communities on this
list and I would be happy to hear from them. As
would our my partners in this project, though
they are more taciturn than I am, and have given
me leave to use the word 'we' (though be
assured they will correct me anytime I step
wrong).<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p>· What does it mean that “ICANN
establishes SLAs/MoU with Post Transition
IANA”? Why would ICANN be involved in this?</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Because in any of the configurations of the
model there is a degree of separation. The fully
owned subsidiary confirguartion does include
full structural separation into the subsidiary.
Often the interface, in cases of an fully owned
entity, is an SLA/MOU. One of the stresses for
the Outside model people in the CWG is that fact
the the relationship between the ICANN
operational community and IANA has no
externalized rigor. SLAs/MOUs between a parent
company and a subsidiary are one way to
establish such a controlled relationship. <br>
<br>
So even in the fully owned subsidiary of ICANN,
it is possible for ICANN, the parent company, to
establish SLA and MOUs with its Post Transition
IANA (PTI) subsidiary. <br>
<br>
In the Shared Service Arrangement, ICANN would
be one of 3 operational community joint owners*
establishing SLA/MOUs with their jointly owned
subsidiary.<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p>· With regard to the overall status
of the IANA functions operator, I understand
the need for parity between the three
organizations, but when it comes to each of
their specific functions, I don’t see the
value of parity. For example, couldn’t parity
become a problem with regard to issues related
to the naming functions from a naming
community point of view?</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
The CSC, in support of its SLAs with recourse to
the IAP is the main point for naming community
issues. The only parity issues there might be
those within the CSC in terms of Registry
priority within that committee and the balance
within ICANN's PTI Board representation.<br>
<br>
The Post Transition IANA (PTI) Board function is
limited to IANA internal operational issues,
finances and exception processing.<br>
<br>
By the time an issue gets passed the IAP, which
I personally hope has binding arbitration
capabilities, to the Board of the PTI as an
exception processing issue, it is one that would
probably be broader that just a naming community
issue and warrant the check and balances a board
with full parity brings.<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p>· Without in any way criticizing the
proposed approach, isn’t the new IANA board a
new architectural feature</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Criticism is fine, this is an out of the box
proposal meant to solve a nearly intractable
problem amongst the Inside model, the Outside
model and Republicans in the US congress. If it
can't deal with criticism it isn't going to get
very far. Criticism is the fuel of improvement.
And this model, as all models, needs improvement
only broader discussions, i.e. criticism, self
criticism and further work, can bring.<br>
<br>
Yes the model includes new architectural
features, just as the CSC, MRT and IAP are. In
fact it is a variation on the mainstream theme,
though like in the internal models, the Contract
Co has been eliminated, so one less new feature
to deal with.<br>
<br>
But indeed it does need meet the accountability
test that Strickling mentioned for new
components. <br>
<br>
Working on a draft on that now. Pretty close
too, just waitng for one of the team to get back
from vacation and check it out before opening it
up for wider criticism and discussion.<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p>· Has any thought been put into the
source of funding?</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Yes.<br>
<br>
In the wholly own subsidiary, ICANN subsidizes,
as it owns it. Really no diffferent that it does
now, just with a more transparent and specific
budget.<br>
<br>
In the Shared Service Arrangements, it is shared
between the owners (IETF/IAB/ISOC, ICANN &
RIRs/NRO) in some way they agree on. I
understand that the numbers community already
contributes a significiant sum to ICANN
operations, perhaps some part of it is intended
for IANA operations and would be redirected. As
for the protocol community, I expect the others
would continue to carry them given their nature
as a subsidized volunteer group that takes in no
income but which remains critical to the IANA
ecosystem and the Internet itself.<br>
<br>
In the Free Standing configuration, I haven't
really thought about funding, though perhaps
others in the team have. I would assume a model
that included startup investment from the
operational communities, and perhaps others, and
the development of a fund raising, or income
producing, strategy by its Board. Just like any
other free standing company. I think anyone who
championed that confdiguration would need to get
mode specific on those details. <br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p>· Who would have MOUs with the Post
Transition IANA?</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
They would be between Post Transition IANA (PTI)
and each its customers: IETF/IAB/ISOC, ICANN,
& RIRs/NRO<br>
Not sure what you mean by "who holds them?"<br>
<br>
I suppose in the fully subsidized configuration,
the parent compnay ICANN could still hold the
SLA/MOUs the for the protocol and number
operational communities, if they wanted to
continue contracting with ICANN instead of PTI.
This would require a slight variation on the
subsidiary configuration, but could be defined.
Ie. ICANN would remain repsonsble for meeting
the SLA, and it would use its fully own IANA
subsidiary to do the work.<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p>· In the ICANN subsidiary, shared
services and free-standing diagrams, why is
ICANN shown as one of three elements of the
Post Transition IANA Board?</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
The Board is made up of the three operational
communities, each of which brings it paticualr
multstakeholder mix to the table. ICANN, our
CWG community, is one of the 3 operational
communities and thus should bring its
multistakeholder mix to the PTI Board.<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I appreciate the thought
that has gone into this.</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
And I yours.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
avri<br>
<br>
* The model also allows for separate SLA/MOUS
with the the non participating ccTLDs if
necessary - the the PTI Board makes no
accommodation for that at this point - a
complexity we did not tackle. The model is
based on the notion that each of the operational
communities internalizes its own
multistakeholder churn, but we recognize that
some of the churn cannot always be internalized.<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chuck</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Avri Doria<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 18, 2015
2:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"
target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] Update
on the Integrated model.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
As mentioned in an earlier email, Matthew
Shears, Brenden Kuerbis and I have been
working on a model that attempts to integrate
solutions to some of the various sets of
concerns by those favoring internal models and
those preferring external models while trying
to make the model simpler and more accountable
to the IANA ecosystem and the wider
community. During Singapore week we spoke to
as many as we could about this model and have
received, and worked through, a number of
comments on the open drive draft document,
which we announced on the list.<br>
<br>
The working draft, which is still a work in
progress and remains open for comment can be
found at:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5YZCU/edit?usp=sharing"
target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5YZCU/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
<br>
I have attached a pdf version of a snapshot
draft of the doc as of today.<br>
<br>
We would like to be able to present this at
the next RFP3 meeting. Or anywhere else that
is appropriate.<br>
<br>
We are also working on drafts to document the
means by which this model responds to NTIA
requirements, but we will able to speak those
on list and during the meeting.<br>
<br>
In the draft we present three possible
configurations for the model. The authors
believe that Shared Service Arrangement (page
6) is the preferred configuration, as it
offers the most accountability for the least
amount of change or complexity. We would also
be interested to see how these models fare
under the stress testing - we have not done
that in any focused way yet, though we have
kept those tests in mind. <br>
<br>
It should be noted that this model would
require a minimal amount of accommodation by
the Protocols and Number communities, but
believe that this accommodation while not
disturbing their current model in any
significant way would make IANA more
accountable to them as well.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>