[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi Greg,

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 04:04:31AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> And shouldn't the names community have that opportunity now?

There are lots of things that, in an ideal world, we might like to
have happen.  Unfortunately, we're constrained by the calendar in this
world.  I suggest that even if the names community wants to discuss
this with all logically possible options open to it, the only live
options now are "somehow consistent with what the numbers community
published in January" or "no transition".  See below for why I think
this.

> In any event, that doesn't mean an entire proposal would be sent back for
> re-approval.

No, but that doesn't help.

Suppose that we wanted the numbers community to agree that ICANN
itself meets the criteria in the portion of the ICG proposal that came
from the numbers community.  I suggest that this flies in the face of
the plain meaning of the text at ¶ 2076 and ¶ 2083.  So we'd need to
find some way to get the numbers community to agree with this novel
reading.

Now, the way the "numbers community" is structured, this would involve
coming to agreement with the CRISP team.  They would then have to
evaluate consensus among the RIRs.  To do that, each RIR would need to
go back to its community and run its consensus process.  Each RIR does
this differently, but it takes time in every case.  I'd be astonished
if a change like this could be decided in under a month.  If there are
adjustments that have to happen in order to get the relevant support,
then that too has to go through the relevant paths and back to all the
various RIRs.

And of course, all of this assumes that names and numbers don't come
up with something inconsistent with the text that came from the IETF.
If so, then you have that community to involve, too; and changes to
the IANAPLAN WG's product cannot possibly happen in less than a month,
assuming everyone was already on board (because of the length of time
last call would take.  If we tried to run it short, we'd create an
avenue for appeal).

Once all of that is done, then the ICG would have to knit the new
state of affairs into its proposal and await public comment on that.

I don't see how all of this happens in time for the proposal to be
demonstrably supported by everyone in time for the Dublin ICANN
meeting.  I do not believe there is any remaining slack in the
timeline.  And we cannot fail to do this in the completely above-board
way I just outlined, because if we did we would not be acting
consistently with the NTIA criteria, and the NTIA would not then be
able to certify the transition plan, so the transition wouldn't go
ahead anyway.

Therefore, I believe that the CWG needs to come up with a resolution
that is consistent with the proposal the ICG has put out, or else
accept that the CWG's position will derail the transition.  This is
not any other community attempting to force anything down CWG's
throat.  This is just the fact of the calendar and the fact that the
CWG was dealing with other things since January.  Having stood mute on
the principles underlying this topic when the proposals were going to
the ICG, we now need to undertake implementation consistent with what
the ICG published.  That includes the proposal from the numbers
community, so that's the principle we need to work with.

If any of this is unclear or you want further elaboration, I'd be
happy to discuss either on list or on the phone or however you like.
The above is, of course, just my own analysis; and I have no special
knowledge or power in this, but I'm reasonably confident in my sense
of how long this could take in those other communities.

Best regards,

A (only for myself, as ever)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com