<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Avri,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think the SCWG should not have absolute discretion to recommend a timeframe. They would still have to abide by the "no less than every 5 years" rule. Within the confines of the rule, they could have discretion to recommend a timeframe for the next PIFR. However, I still think it's overkill to accelerate a comprehensive PIFR instead of conducting a focused follow-up review of the remediation.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I agree that we should not be creating yet another mechanism and wheher<br>
we reset timers of not, we do not create something new to handle a post<br>
SCWG review.<br>
<br>
To Chuck's point, if we leave the periodicity of reviews post a SCWG to<br>
the SCWG, they could decide that 5 years is much too frequent. I am<br>
fine with leaving the future open to the future on issue of timer<br>
duration if others are.<br>
<br>
In recommending a return to Transition rules, I hoped I was recommending<br>
something simple that required few extra words in the proposal. Just as<br>
I believe we should not be adding new mechanisms, I also believe that we<br>
should not be adding a lot of complicating text at this point.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<span class=""><br>
<br>
On 08-Jun-15 10:53, Matthew Shears wrote:<br>
> Thanks Greg - I think this makes sense. On the Follow-up Reviews, I<br>
> agree that the PIFR should not be accelerated to do it, but why<br>
> wouldn't IFR still undertake the review? I don't think we should be<br>
> creating a new body to do so.<br>
><br>
> On 6/8/2015 10:42 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
>> My suggestion is that the periodic IFRs should stay on the same<br>
>> schedule (like Olympics or World Cups or Presidential elections)<br>
>> regardless of any SIFRs. So, if the transition takes places in 2015,<br>
>> the first (2 year) IFR would take place in 2017, and then every 5<br>
>> years thereafter (in this example, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, etc.),<br>
>> unless a new IFO is put in place, replacing PTI. In this case, the<br>
>> clock should reset, so that there is a 2 year IFR, followed by<br>
>> successive 5 year IFRs (as above).<br>
>><br>
</span>>> *Follow-up Reviews: *SIFRs are different than PIFRs because they are<br>
<span class="">>> triggered by a material deficiency, and they are aimed at resolving<br>
>> that deficiency. Therefore, I suggest that after a SIFR (or a SCWG<br>
>> that does not result in a new IFO), a targeted follow-up should take<br>
>> place to determine whether the deficiency was in fact satisfactorily<br>
>> resolved. A full PIFR is not the right tool to do so, and should not<br>
>> be accelerated to serve as such. I would suggest that this Follow-up<br>
>> Review should take place 1 year after the end of the SIFR or SCWG<br>
>> process.<br>
>><br>
>> Greg<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Gomes, Chuck <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a><br>
</span><span class="">>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I definitely think we should keep it as simple as possible and<br>
>> maybe having the SCWG make recommendations as to any clock<br>
>> resetting is one way to keep it simpler. I definitely don't<br>
>> think that periodic reviews should ever happen less frequently<br>
>> than every five years.<br>
>><br>
>> Chuck<br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
</span><span class="">>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
</span><span class="">>> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:32 PM<br>
</span><div><div class="h5">>> To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 --<br>
>> Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC<br>
>><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> that was exactly what I proposed.<br>
>><br>
>> SCWG -> reset IFR timer.<br>
>><br>
>> cheers<br>
>><br>
>> avri<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 07-Jun-15 18:30, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
>> > I think we are complicating things with the timing of reviews. It<br>
>> > will be more predictable to have the periodic reviews stay on<br>
>> > schedule, regardless of a SIFR. I would suggest that the next<br>
>> > periodic IFR (PIFR?) after a SIFR should specifically examine<br>
>> whether<br>
>> > the remediation that came out of the SIFR continued to work in a<br>
>> > satisfactory manner.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > The only exception would be if a SIFR resulting in SCWG and<br>
>> ultimately<br>
>> > in a new IFO (replacing PTI). In this case, the new IFO should be<br>
>> > subject to a PIFR two years after commencing operations.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Greg<br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 12:45 PM, James Gannon<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>><br>
</div></div>>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a><br>
<span class="">>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>>>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I would support the SCWG making a recommendation on it as the<br>
>> > landscape may change post an SCWG depending on the outcome. The<br>
>> > SCWG would be in the best position to make an informed fact<br>
>> based<br>
>> > decision at that time rather than us making it based on<br>
>> > hypotheticals now.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > -James<br>
>> ><br>
>> > -----Original Message-----<br>
>> > From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>>><br>
</span><span class="">>> > [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>>>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
>> > Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM<br>
>> > To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
</span>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>>><br>
<div><div class="h5">>> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits<br>
>> > due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Hi<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Sorry for the confusion.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I was asking whether we consider resetting the IFR timer<br>
>> for post<br>
>> > SCWG.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > We had the conversation about post SIFR and lots of<br>
>> arguments were<br>
>> > made both ways, with neither prevailing; so I left that<br>
>> issue alone.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > The idea about doing it post SCWG, is that even if the SCWG<br>
>> were<br>
>> > to result in no-change, whatever would have been going on<br>
>> at the<br>
>> > time, would have been serious enough for the SCWG to have been<br>
>> > triggered. It therefore seems that this would be a good<br>
>> time to<br>
>> > rest the clock back to time 0 (i.e. this transition).<br>
>> ><br>
>> > On the other hand, perhaps this decision could be left to<br>
>> the SCWG<br>
>> > to recommend, just as a SIFR or IFR could recommend a<br>
>> changed timing.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > avri<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > On 07-Jun-15 11:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
>> > > Avri,<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Regarding the clock for periodic IFRs related to SIFRs,<br>
>> let me<br>
>> > make sure I understand what you are suggesting. Am I<br>
>> correct that<br>
>> > you are suggesting that after an SIFR the entire clock would be<br>
>> > reset so that the next periodic IFR would occur two years later<br>
>> > and then the (no more than) 5 year periodic review cycle would<br>
>> > kick in again? If so, then the only concern I have is a<br>
>> situation<br>
>> > illustration by this possible scenario:<br>
>> > > - The initial 2-year periodic review happens.<br>
>> > > - A SIFR occurs 4 years after the initial 2-year<br>
>> periodic<br>
>> > review.<br>
>> > > - A new 2-year periodic review happens 2 years<br>
>> after the SIFR.<br>
>> > > In this case there would be six years or more between<br>
>> periodic<br>
>> > reviews, which would violate our intent that periodic reviews<br>
>> > occur no less frequently than five years.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Because periodic review cover items different than in<br>
>> SIFRs, I<br>
>> > think we should fix this, assuming I am understanding your<br>
>> > recommendation correctly, and I think it should be easily<br>
>> fixable<br>
>> > with some adjustments to wording. Would a qualifier, like the<br>
>> > following work: "In case an SIFR occurs close to the end of a<br>
>> > 5-year period after the last periodic review, the periodic<br>
>> review<br>
>> > should still occur and a 2-year periodic review should<br>
>> occur after<br>
>> > the 5-year periodic review."<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > I am not sure my qualifying language is the best but I at<br>
>> least<br>
>> > wanted to try to suggest something.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Hope this makes sense but if it doesn't please let me know.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Chuck<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > -----Original Message-----<br>
>> > > From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>>><br>
</div></div><span class="">>> > > [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
</span><span class="">>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>>>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
>> > > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM<br>
>> > > To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
</span>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>>><br>
<div><div class="h5">>> > > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 --<br>
>> Edits<br>
>> > due on<br>
>> > > Sunday at 23:59 UTC<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Hi,<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > On a partial reread, I have the following comments.<br>
>> > > I do agree with Grace's comment that we are almost there.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > On 05-Jun-15 00:07, Grace Abuhamad wrote:<br>
>> > >> Dear all,<br>
>> > >><br>
>> > >> Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes<br>
>> the edits<br>
>> > >> listed below. *Your comments are requested and welcome<br>
>> until Sunday<br>
>> > >> 23:59 UTC.* If you don't have time to read the whole<br>
>> proposal, I've<br>
>> > >> highlighted specific areas in the document that require<br>
>> feedback.<br>
>> > >> * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about<br>
>> status of<br>
>> > >> footnote<br>
>> > >><br>
>> > > - i do not understand footnote 51 in the context of the<br>
>> current<br>
>> > report. It is a vestige of a time before we discussed the<br>
>> IFR in<br>
>> > detail. I think it should be removed.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > >> * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri<br>
>> perhaps?)<br>
>> > >><br>
>> > > seems fine to me.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > ><br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > --- Does Annex H need to change based on changes made<br>
>> in para 133<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > --- An issue we discussed but not sure we closed on.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > IFR Clock reset after any SCWG. (and understanding that we<br>
>> > could not<br>
>> > > come to consensus of changing the periodicity after an SIFR)<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > I think we need to reset the clock after any SCWG, no<br>
>> matter what<br>
>> > > outcome it may select. If something was important enough<br>
>> to warrant<br>
>> > > an SCWG, its outcome needs to be reviewed 2 years later -<br>
>> even<br>
>> > in case<br>
>> > > of a decision of no change)<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > this would require changing: 299 top row 2nd col.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > >> Initially, two years, then moving to every five years<br>
>> > >><br>
>> > > to<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Initially and after an SCWG, two years, then moving to an<br>
>> > interval of<br>
>> > > no more than five years<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > (the second bit for consistency with other word in the doc)<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > It might also require insertion of something like the<br>
>> following<br>
>> > after<br>
>> > > 126 & 385<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > # After the completion of a SCWG process, the IFR<br>
>> periodic clock<br>
>> > will be reset to its initial state of first IFR after 2 years<br>
>> > followed by a period of no more that five years for<br>
>> subsequent IFR.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > thanks<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > avri<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > ><br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > ---<br>
>> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast<br>
>> antivirus software.<br>
>> > > <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> > > <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
</div></div>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>>><br>
<span class="">>> > > <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > ---<br>
>> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus<br>
>> software.<br>
>> > <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
</span>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>>><br>
<span class="">>> > <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
</span>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>>><br>
<span class="im HOEnZb">>> > <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
>> > <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ---<br>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
>> <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
><br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">> --<br>
> Matthew Shears<br>
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights<br>
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)<br>
> <a href="tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987" value="+447712472987">+ 44 (0)771 247 2987</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>