<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"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>></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 -> 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 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 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 <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a><br>
> <mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
> [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> <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 4:29 PM<br>
> To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
> 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 for post<br>
> SCWG.<br>
><br>
> We had the conversation about post SIFR and
lots of arguments were<br>
> made both ways, with neither prevailing; so I
left that issue alone.<br>
><br>
> The idea about doing it post SCWG, is that even
if the SCWG were<br>
> to result in no-change, whatever would have
been going on 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 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 the SCWG<br>
> to recommend, just as a SIFR or IFR could
recommend a 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, let me<br>
> make sure I understand what you are
suggesting. Am I 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 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 periodic<br>
> review.<br>
> > - A new 2-year periodic review
happens 2 years after the SIFR.<br>
> > In this case there would be six years or
more between 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 SIFRs, I<br>
> think we should fix this, assuming I am
understanding your<br>
> recommendation correctly, and I think it should
be easily 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 review<br>
> should still occur and a 2-year periodic review
should occur after<br>
> the 5-year periodic review."<br>
> ><br>
> > I am not sure my qualifying language is
the best but I at 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
> > [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> <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: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM<br>
> > To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition
Proposal v.3 -- 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 the edits<br>
> >> listed below. *Your comments are
requested and welcome until Sunday<br>
> >> 23:59 UTC.* If you don't have time to
read the whole proposal, I've<br>
> >> highlighted specific areas in the
document that require feedback.<br>
> >> * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond
to Sidley about status of<br>
> >> footnote<br>
> >><br>
> > - i do not understand footnote 51 in the
context of the current<br>
> report. It is a vestige of a time before we
discussed the IFR in<br>
> detail. I think it should be removed.<br>
> ><br>
> >> * Section VI edits should be
reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?)<br>
> >><br>
> > seems fine to me.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --- Does Annex H need to change based
on changes made 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 matter what<br>
> > outcome it may select. If something was
important enough to warrant<br>
> > an SCWG, its outcome needs to be reviewed
2 years later - 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 following<br>
> after<br>
> > 126 & 385<br>
> ><br>
> > # After the completion of a SCWG process,
the IFR 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 subsequent IFR.<br>
> ><br>
> > thanks<br>
> ><br>
> > avri<br>
> ><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>
<mailto:<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>
><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>
<mailto:<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>
<mailto:<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>
><br>
><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>
<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 & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987</pre>
</body>
</html>