[CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

[Greg Shatan]

My responses below:

Greg

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other,
> but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail
> required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John.
> Because it's not our opinion that matters.  I'll leave it to our chairs to
> determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from
> the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our
> proposal.
>
>
>
> MM: OK, we will be discussing that in our next ICG meeting.
>

GS: Good, thanks.

>
>
> For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as
> the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional
> documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)?  Or is a fully drafted
> contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that
> is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)?
>
>
>
> MM: This is a very good example of why we need to be flexible and turn
> away from any turn-key fantasies. In some cases it will be fine to have a
> solid implementation plan, and trust the relevant operational community to
> take the additional steps. In other cases it may be advisable to have more
> detail. In some cases we may even need a fully-drafted contract. To specify
> one or the other of these options rigidly and in advance is not very wise,
> in my opinion. If the ICG, or the public comment period on the final
> proposal, indicate serious gaps in implementation detail that need to be
> addressed, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
>
>
GS:  I don't think a turnkey approach is a "fantasy"; however, it's
certainly more work. I'm all in favor of flexibility and taking a more
granular approach to what level of detail is needed for a given aspect of
the plan. I'm happy to do less work rather than more.  Our job is big no
matter where you define the boundaries.  Of course, anything we don't do
now will need to be done by this or some other body (an "Implementation
Team"?) later.

>
>
> Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN
> working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that
> will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or
> is it something in between?
>
>
>
> MM: same comment as above.
>
>
>
> For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a
> mention that there will be one?
>
>
>
> MM: For something of that importance I am sure all parties to this
> proposal process would demand something more than a “mention.”
>
>
>
> I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of
> detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail,
> and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that,
> there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the
> IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can
> begin. Is that really what's intended?
>
>
>
> MM: Intent is not the critical factor here, practicality is. I personally
> see no problem with withholding termination of the contract for a few
> months while implementation details are worked out.
>

GS: Hopefully, intent is based on practicality.  I also personally see no
problem with a two-phase process, and it would seem (upon review of the
other two proposals) that all 3 communities assumed that would be the
case.  But our personal feelings don't amount to a hill of beans in this
crazy world....

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150224/243ce11b/attachment.html>