[SLE Team] [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call yesterday.

Jonathan Robinson jrobinson at afilias.info
Thu Sep 10 11:35:03 UTC 2015


Martin,

Are you referring to the last DT call or the last CWG call?

Thanks.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] 
Sent: 10 September 2015 12:29
To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk>; dt1 at icann.org;
cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call
yesterday.
Importance: High

Hi all,

At our last call I raised a number of concerns that I had with the draft.  I
am afraid that these remain in place in the draft we are discussing this
evening.

My issues are:

1.  We have not discussed the process by which the recommendations from the
IANA functions operator are checked and approved.  

Currently this is a role that is entirely within the IANA functions operator
- the IANA team provides a report to the ICANN Board which checks to see
whether due process has been followed and that the relevant tests have been
documented and explained.  This is an internal review now.

Who should carry out what is essentially a check that the IANA team has
carried out its work correctly?  I'd be inclined to say the PTI Board (as
the body *directly* responsible for the IANA functions operation):  it has
ICANN appointed directors - one of these could ensure that ICANN's interests
are properly represented.  It could be argued that this should remain with
the ICANN Board, but that would give have split responsibilities, which is
messy.  It also puts the decision into the policy-authority's role, so there
will need to be caution about the separation of policy and operation.

2.  There is an introduction of independent verification parties and third
party review.

Given our decision to avoid duplicating the NTIA authorisation role to avoid
setting new gatekeepers, I do not welcome the introduction of an independent
verification party and there certainly needs to be clear accountability for
that entity.  While I understand that an ICANN Board decision process could
be seen as a third party decision, I would like us to introduce clarity in
what we expect - in this case the choice between PTI and ICANN Boards having
the role of ticking off the change proposal.

3.  Emergency transaction times

This is, I believe, included in the ICANN-NTIA contract.  I still do not
understand why this does not appear in the tables and I do not want it to be
lost when the templates are completed.


I would suggest the following changes in the current draft to take into
account these concerns.  I have tried to make them neutral - I am conscious
that a lot of work is still needed to populate the SLEs and some of the
decisions on process flow might then get reflected in more precise wording
on who does what.

*  Page 8 Category IV:  change "... and having that report reviewed
externally ..." to "... and having that report reviewed following agreed
processes (either by the PTI Board or by the ICANN Board) ..."  I would also
welcome a commitment to discuss where this operational oversight should lie
in the new structure.

*  Page 11 last row:  change "Time for third-party review of request (e.g.by
ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification parties)" to
"Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board adoption of the change report."  I could also
accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval."

*  Page 15 A4 row:  change "waiting on ICANN Board or other independent
verification parties ..." to "waiting on [PTI or ICANN] Board for adoption
of change report ...".  I could also accept "waiting for [PTI or ICANN]
process verification and approval...".

*  Page 16  B4 row:  I'd prefer to see this new row deleted:  it appears to
have the sole function of introducing a third-party review.  I _could_
accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] review of process - Time for [PTI or ICANN]
Board review and adoption of change report" or "Time for [PTI or ICANN]
review of process - Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and
approval."

*  Page 17 Process performance note:  incorporate in the table

*  Page 23 top full row of table:  change " Time for third-party review of
request (e.g. by ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification
parties)" to ""Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board review and adoption of change
report" or "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and
approval."

Thanks



Martin




-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG
Sent: 04 September 2015 16:49
To: dt1 at icann.org
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call
yesterday.

Dear all

Thank you for the positive comments yesterday during our call concerning the
IANA Server Level Expectation document.

As requested, I have updated the document to reflect the comments raised
(red-lined)..

A clean version of this document (Rev1) I hope the CWG will formally ratify
next wee (on our 10th Sept call).

I would also like to thank Bernie for taking us all through the document and
for checking the requested (Rev1) updates.

Have a good w/end all

Best

Paul

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship



More information about the dt1 mailing list