[CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool

[James Gannon]

Greg with regards to shared services the attached might be helpful at a high level, this was provided to DT-O during the process.

-James

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 6:31 PM
To: Suzanne Woolf
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool

Suzanne,

Thanks for your email.  I think you raise an important point:

I think it depends on what one considers “IANA”— staff involved in the day-to-day tasks covered by the SLAs, DNS operations (which has at least sometimes been considered administratively separate from “IANA”, contractors hired to look into specifics of various activities to be undertaken by IANA staff, etc.

​"What one considers "IANA""​

goes beyond the budget process -- indeed, if we sort out what one considers "IANA," the issue of which budget item goes where pretty much gets solved.

I think the inquiry has to be a little bit different -- not "what does one consider "IANA"" but rather "What (and who) will go into PTI"?  I've worked on more than a few divestitures, spin-outs, reorganizations, etc., and dividing people, things, IP, contracts, etc., is is never quite as easy as one thinks (which is not to say it's complex).  To take your example, will "DNS operations" be moved to PTI?  Are there projects that benefit or relate to IANA that are carried out outside of the team that is moving (virtually) to PTI?  Are there shared assets or services?  There are certainly enterprise and back-office services that ICANN provides to the IANA staff and operations; these can be provided under a services agreement of some sort.

I agree that we don't need to delve into this now.  But soon enough, we'll need to pull out the sorting hat and we will see what and who goes where (and maybe to more than one place)....


Greg


  ​


On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide at gmail.com<mailto:suzworldwide at gmail.com>> wrote:

On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:58 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org<mailto:david.conrad at icann.org>> wrote:

Greg,

Apologies for the slow response — a bit buried in stuff right now.

I'm going on what Suzanne said, which is that the consulting that has been done to date to support IANA was "not undertaken directly by IANA staff."

I'm not sure that's accurate.

Thanks David for the clarification, and I think I see where we diverged— besides that you’re more in touch with the day-to-day operations than I am. Apologies to all for any confusion from what I said.

I think it depends on what one considers “IANA”— staff involved in the day-to-day tasks covered by the SLAs, DNS operations (which has at least sometimes been considered administratively separate from “IANA”, contractors hired to look into specifics of various activities to be undertaken by IANA staff, etc.

But rather than push further into those details here, I’ll happily concede David’s clarifications, as IMHO they illustrate that our definitions may be ambiguous and need to be clarified.

In addition, there are a number of aging software systems currently in use by IANA staff that are (or were) slated to be replaced, e.g., the PEN request/management system.

This is an excellent example of the kind of functionality that PTI needs to be able to support, whether in-house or out-sourced.

thanks,
Suzanne




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150604/957bd819/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN - IANA costs 150406 Summary.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 76409 bytes
Desc: ICANN - IANA costs 150406 Summary.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150604/957bd819/ICANN-IANAcosts150406Summary-0001.pdf>