<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">My suggestion is that the periodic IFRs should stay on the same schedule (like Olympics or World Cups or Presidential elections) regardless of any SIFRs.  So, if the transition takes places in 2015, the first (2 year) IFR would take place in 2017, and then every 5 years thereafter (in this example, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, etc.), unless a new IFO is put in place, replacing PTI.  In this case, the clock should reset, so that there is a 2 year IFR, followed by successive 5 year IFRs (as above).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b>Follow-up Reviews: </b>SIFRs are different than PIFRs because they are triggered by a material deficiency, and they are aimed at resolving that deficiency.  Therefore, I suggest that after a SIFR (or a SCWG that does not result in a new IFO), a targeted follow-up should take place to determine whether the deficiency was in fact satisfactorily resolved.  A full PIFR is not the right tool to do so, and should not be accelerated to serve as such.  I would suggest that this Follow-up Review should take place 1 year after the end of the SIFR or SCWG process.</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 9:36 AM, Gomes, Chuck <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I definitely think we should keep it as simple as possible and maybe having the SCWG make recommendations as to any clock resetting is one way to keep it simpler.  I definitely don&#39;t think that periodic reviews should ever happen less frequently than every five years.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Chuck<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [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 7:32 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
that was exactly what I proposed.<br>
<br>
SCWG -&gt; reset IFR timer.<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 07-Jun-15 18:30, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
&gt; I think we are complicating things with the timing of reviews.  It<br>
&gt; will be more predictable to have the periodic reviews stay on<br>
&gt; schedule, regardless of a SIFR.  I would suggest that the next<br>
&gt; periodic IFR (PIFR?) after a SIFR should specifically examine whether<br>
&gt; the remediation that came out of the SIFR continued to work in a<br>
&gt; satisfactory manner.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The only exception would be if a SIFR resulting in SCWG and ultimately<br>
&gt; in a new IFO (replacing PTI).  In this case, the new IFO should be<br>
&gt; subject to a PIFR two years after commencing operations.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Greg<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 12:45 PM, James Gannon &lt;<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a><br>
&gt; &lt;mailto:<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>&gt;&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     I would support the SCWG making a recommendation on it as the<br>
&gt;     landscape may change post an SCWG depending on the outcome. The<br>
&gt;     SCWG would be in the best position to make an informed fact based<br>
&gt;     decision at that time rather than us making it based on<br>
&gt;     hypotheticals now.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     -James<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     -----Original Message-----<br>
&gt;     From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
&gt;     &lt;mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
&gt;     [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
&gt;     &lt;mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>&gt;] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
&gt;     Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM<br>
&gt;     To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> &lt;mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
&gt;     Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits<br>
&gt;     due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     Hi<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     Sorry for the confusion.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     I was asking whether we consider resetting the IFR timer for post<br>
&gt;     SCWG.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     We had the conversation about post SIFR and lots of arguments were<br>
&gt;     made both ways, with neither prevailing; so I left that issue alone.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     The idea about doing it post SCWG, is that even if the SCWG were<br>
&gt;     to result in no-change, whatever would have been going on at the<br>
&gt;     time, would have been serious enough for the SCWG to have been<br>
&gt;     triggered.  It therefore seems that this would be a good time to<br>
&gt;     rest the clock back to time 0 (i.e. this transition).<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     On the other hand, perhaps this decision could be left to the SCWG<br>
&gt;     to recommend, just as a SIFR or IFR could recommend a changed timing.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     avri<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     On 07-Jun-15 11:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
&gt;     &gt; Avri,<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; Regarding the clock for periodic IFRs related to SIFRs, let me<br>
&gt;     make sure I understand what you are suggesting.  Am I correct that<br>
&gt;     you are suggesting that after an SIFR the entire clock would be<br>
&gt;     reset so that the next periodic IFR would occur two years later<br>
&gt;     and then the (no more than) 5 year periodic review cycle would<br>
&gt;     kick in again?  If so, then the only concern I have is a situation<br>
&gt;     illustration by this possible scenario:<br>
&gt;     &gt;       -  The initial 2-year periodic review happens.<br>
&gt;     &gt;       -  A SIFR occurs 4 years after the initial 2-year periodic<br>
&gt;     review.<br>
&gt;     &gt;       - A new 2-year periodic review happens 2 years after the SIFR.<br>
&gt;     &gt; In this case there would be six years or more between periodic<br>
&gt;     reviews, which would violate our intent that periodic reviews<br>
&gt;     occur no less frequently than five years.<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; Because periodic review cover items different than in SIFRs, I<br>
&gt;     think we should fix this, assuming I am understanding your<br>
&gt;     recommendation correctly, and I think it should be easily fixable<br>
&gt;     with some adjustments to wording.  Would a qualifier, like the<br>
&gt;     following work:  &quot;In case an SIFR occurs close to the end of a<br>
&gt;     5-year period after the last periodic review, the periodic review<br>
&gt;     should still occur and a 2-year periodic review should occur after<br>
&gt;     the 5-year periodic review.&quot;<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; I am not sure my qualifying language is the best but I at least<br>
&gt;     wanted to try to suggest something.<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; Hope this makes sense but if it doesn&#39;t please let me know.<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; Chuck<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; -----Original Message-----<br>
&gt;     &gt; From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
&gt;     &lt;mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
&gt;     &lt;mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>&gt;] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
&gt;     &gt; Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM<br>
&gt;     &gt; To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> &lt;mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits<br>
&gt;     due on<br>
&gt;     &gt; Sunday at 23:59 UTC<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; Hi,<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; On a partial reread, I have the following comments.<br>
&gt;     &gt; I do agree with Grace&#39;s comment that we are almost there.<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; On 05-Jun-15 00:07, Grace Abuhamad wrote:<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt; Dear all,<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt; Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes the edits<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt; listed below. *Your comments are requested and welcome until Sunday<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt; 23:59 UTC.* If you don&#39;t have time to read the whole proposal, I&#39;ve<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt; highlighted specific areas in the document that require feedback.<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt;   * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt; footnote<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; -  i do not understand footnote 51 in the context of the current<br>
&gt;     report.  It is a vestige of a time before we discussed the IFR in<br>
&gt;     detail.  I think it should be removed.<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt;   * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?)<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; seems fine to me.<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; ---    Does Annex H need to change based on changes made in para 133<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; ---   An issue we discussed but not sure we closed on.<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; IFR Clock reset after any SCWG.  (and understanding that we<br>
&gt;     could not<br>
&gt;     &gt; come to consensus of changing the periodicity after an SIFR)<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; I think we need to reset the clock after any SCWG, no matter what<br>
&gt;     &gt; outcome it may select.  If something was important enough to warrant<br>
&gt;     &gt; an SCWG, its outcome needs to be reviewed 2 years later - even<br>
&gt;     in case<br>
&gt;     &gt; of a decision of no change)<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; this would require changing: 299 top row 2nd col.<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt; Initially, two years, then moving to every five years<br>
&gt;     &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; to<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; Initially and after an SCWG, two years, then moving to an<br>
&gt;     interval of<br>
&gt;     &gt; no more than five years<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; (the second bit for consistency with other word in the doc)<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; It might also require insertion of something like the following<br>
&gt;     after<br>
&gt;     &gt; 126 &amp; 385<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; # After the completion of a SCWG process, the IFR periodic clock<br>
&gt;     will be reset to its initial state of first IFR after 2 years<br>
&gt;     followed by a period of no more that five years for subsequent IFR.<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; thanks<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; avri<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; ---<br>
&gt;     &gt; This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
&gt;     &gt; <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
&gt;     &gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;     &gt; CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
&gt;     &gt; <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> &lt;mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
&gt;     &gt; <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     ---<br>
&gt;     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
&gt;     <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;     _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;     CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
&gt;     <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> &lt;mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
&gt;     <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
&gt;     _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;     CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
&gt;     <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> &lt;mailto:<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
&gt;     <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
&gt; <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><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><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>