[DTL] Notes from DT-L Call on 8 April at 13:00 UTC
CW Lists
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
Thu Apr 9 13:25:55 UTC 2015
Good afternoon:
I understand your interpretation of the 'remit'. I think that is not how it will be perceived beyond the narrow confines of the CWG.
The international discussion of the transition has hardly begun. I thought that the purpose of the transition was to remove the NTIA contract from iANA,
not to try and reproduce it in all its details in another context (which? since we have no consensus over 'contract co'.)
For my part, if necessary, I shall come back to this matter in another forum. Meanwhile for the next few days I have other priorities to attend to.
Regards
CW
On 09 Apr 2015, at 02:57, Graeme Bunton <gbunton at tucows.com> wrote:
> I'm going to agree here with Matthew,
> I think that the process we are going through, given it's narrow focus should provide reassurance.
>
> Graeme
>
> On 4/8/2015 6:09 PM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>> 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 for Transition to Successor Contractor" 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 a successor organization, should the Government select a successor contractor to perform 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> 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]
>>>> 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> 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] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
>>>> Sent: April-08-15 9:46 AM
>>>> To: 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
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dt4 mailing list
>> dt4 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt4
>
> --
> _________________________
> Graeme Bunton
> Manager, Management Information Systems
> Manager, Public Policy
> Tucows Inc.
> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
> _______________________________________________
> dt4 mailing list
> 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/20150409/72b07427/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the dt4
mailing list