[DTL] Notes from DT-L Call on 8 April at 13:00 UTC
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Wed Apr 8 22:09:45 UTC 2015
Christopher
I'm afraid that I continue to have great difficulty understanding why
you think that what we are working on in DT-L is misplaced, naive or
de-stabilizing.
We are working on existing text in the current NTIA-ICANN contract -
"C.7.3 Plan forTransition toSuccessorContractor"dating from 2014
(attached) - text that is focused on ensuring that there is business
continuity for the IANA functions should there be a need for moving
(transitioning) the IANA functions to another contractor. We are not
creating some new effort or activity - rather we are looking at
something the current contract explicitly requires: "The current IANA
Functions contract describes a number of functions, systems,processes
and documents that would need to be transitioned from ICANN to
asuccessor organization, should the Government select a successor
contractor toperform the IANA Functions."
We are not trying to anticipate that such a transition would or should
occur. We are trying to ensure that were such a transition to occur
there is - based on the existing contract requirement - a plan that
allows for and encourages the continuity of the IANA functions. This is
a far cry from de-stabilizing - indeed the purpose of this plan (as is
clear in section C.7 of the current contract) is the opposite.
Thanks.
Matthew
On 4/8/2015 10:21 PM, CW Lists wrote:
> In which case the 'remit' and the DT-L interpretation of it, is at
> best quite naive.
> I maintain my postion. No. Such texts are at worst, deliberately
> de-stabilising.
>
> CW
>
>
> On 08 Apr 2015, at 22:41, Allan MacGillivray
> <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <http://christopherwilkinson.eu>]
>> *Sent:*April-08-15 11:04 AM
>> *To:*Allan MacGillivray
>> *Cc:*dt4 at icann.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dt4 mailing list
> dt4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt4
--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt4/attachments/20150408/2d8e9b3c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: transition-plan-201404.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 320694 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt4/attachments/20150408/2d8e9b3c/transition-plan-201404-0001.pdf>
More information about the dt4
mailing list