[DTL] Notes from DT-L Call on 8 April at 13:00 UTC

Allan MacGillivray allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
Wed Apr 8 20:41:29 UTC 2015


Christopher - the remit of DT L is limited to the design of the actual transition plan, not the processes or circumstances under which a decision to effect such a transition might be undertaken.   On our call today, the DT L team acknowledged that given the time constraints that we are operating under, what we would produce might only really be seen to be a framework for such a transition plan and that it would need to be further elaborated in the future.  The recommendation that you refer to ( 1., below) implicitly acknowledges  this and goes on to recommend a deadline for completing such a detailed plan.  The 24 months I chose was somewhat arbitrary, and was intended to recognize that one year might be too short, given all that will be going on.  If you have another suggestion, it would be welcomed; the recommendations that I put out are intended to seek comments.

Regards

Allan

From: CW Lists [mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu]
Sent: April-08-15 11:04 AM
To: Allan MacGillivray
Cc: dt4 at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson; Lise Fuhr
Subject: Re: [DTL] Notes from DT-L Call on 8 April at 13:00 UTC
Importance: High

So, on that basis you would give two years, only, for any interested parties to complain and make as much trouble as they like to force the issue of a 'transition'.
To who? I can see the candidates lining up. Please bear in mind that there is a well established regulatory principle that control over critical infrastructure should not revert to dominant operators.

I wish to be recorded as opposing the language that DT-L is proposing.

CW


On 08 Apr 2015, at 16:18, Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>> wrote:


Further to our call, this is what I propose for recommendations for DTL:

DT-L Recommendations
That:
1.   the transition framework outlined in this document be further developed into a detailed, fully functional, transition plan within 24  months of the date of implementation of the overall IANA stewardship transition;
2.   the budget for IANA operations be augmented with specific funding for the detailed transition plan development referred to in 1;
3.   the process established for the potential transitioning of the IANA functions to an operator  other than ICANN (the escalation process) specifically recognize that the detailed transition plan referred to in 1 must be in place before the commencement of the transitioning process, and
4.   (KSK recommendations from Jaap/Guru)






From: dt4-bounces at icann.org<mailto:dt4-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:dt4-bounces at icann.org<mailto:bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: April-08-15 9:46 AM
To: dt4 at icann.org<mailto:dt4 at icann.org>
Subject: [DTL] Notes from DT-L Call on 8 April at 13:00 UTC

Dear all,
Notes from today's call are below:

DT-L Call on 8 April at 13:00 UTC

Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QRiXP9-nxM-h8FgJ_FyM962EwdjnRESrDT2jOtlRZZ0/edit?usp=sharing

Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/DT-L+Transition+Plan

Members of DT-L include:
James Gannon -- apologies
Guru Acharya
Matthew Shears
Christopher Wilkinson -- not in attendance
Jaap Akkerhuis
Allan MacGillivray
Graeme Bunton

Notes:
Scale back ambitions for the time-being and focus on current transition plan plan.

Suggestion to meet Friday's deadline is to:

  *   use the template and evolve it based on the current transition plan;
  *   elaborate on the high-level principles; and
  *   look at other dependencies with DTs (and other communities)
  *   elaborate a set of recommendations for how the plan should evolve post transition

Action (Matthew): Capture David's comments on DT-L. Also will want to run this template by him tomorrow.

Dependencies with other DTs:
DT-O (Budget) will not be addressing budget costs for transition plan.

DT-M (Escalation): one of their escalation steps may at some point be a RFP or separation, but the detail is not being addressed.
Currently the escalation step relating to RFP says '6. Initiate RFP or [Process mechanism yet to be defined] [Pending Legal Advice & Fundamental Bylaw definition in CCWG]'
--> DT-L could recommend a process for transition
Action (Allan): draft recommendations for escalation related aspects (will circulate on mailing list)

DT-N (Periodic Review) could also be related.

Things to note/edit in the document:
- Scaling back from original plan to write a new transition plan, and instead focusing on the current transition plan and additions to it
- Have not received C.7.2 but submitted a DIDP request for it (submitted an received two other DIDP requests)

Action (Jaap): draft text and recommendations for KSK rollover.
Action (Guru): go over initial concerns (6 point in an email about the trasition plan) and see if addressed in draft.

Analysis of Transition Plan:
'Document Structure' needs to refer to new proposal structure
Transition Actions
'Deliverables not requiring transition' -- note the DIDP request for C.7.2

At best, we'll have a framework for a transition. What DT-L produces can be taken to another level at a later point.

Deadline for edits to document in 24h. Aim for 13:00 UTC on 9 April. This way, Matthew will send text to David for review/feedback.

_______________________________________________
dt4 mailing list
dt4 at icann.org<mailto:dt4 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt4

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt4/attachments/20150408/6b356da5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the dt4 mailing list