<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Thanks Greg - I think this makes sense.   On the Follow-up Reviews,
    I agree that the PIFR should not be accelerated to do it, but why
    wouldn't IFR still undertake the review?  I don't think we should be
    creating a new body to do so. <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/8/2015 10:42 AM, Greg Shatan
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTtqPQgF7fnHw6wnOOygKBq+Ow+U_jLot8pFeHyATge7g@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <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 moz-do-not-send="true"
              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'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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
                [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a><br>
                &gt; &lt;mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
                &gt;     &lt;mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
                &gt;     [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
                &gt;     &lt;mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
                &lt;mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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:  "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."<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'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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
                &gt;     &lt;mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
                &gt;     &gt; [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
                &gt;     &lt;mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
                &lt;mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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'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't have time to
                read the whole proposal, I'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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
                &lt;mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
                &gt;     &gt; <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>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt;     ---<br>
                &gt;     This email has been checked for viruses by
                Avast antivirus software.<br>
                &gt;     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
                &lt;mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
                &gt;     <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>
                &gt;     _______________________________________________<br>
                &gt;     CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
                &gt;     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
                &lt;mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
                &gt;     <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>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt; _______________________________________________<br>
                &gt; CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
                &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
                &gt; <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>
                <br>
                ---<br>
                This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
                antivirus software.<br>
                <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
                <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>
                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>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy &amp; Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987</pre>
  </body>
</html>