[CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC

[Gomes, Chuck]

Avri,

Regarding the clock for periodic IFRs related to SIFRs, let me make sure I understand what you are suggesting.  Am I correct that you are suggesting that after an SIFR the entire clock would be reset so that the next periodic IFR would occur two years later and then the (no more than) 5 year periodic review cycle would kick in again?  If so, then the only concern I have is a situation illustration by this possible scenario:
	-  The initial 2-year periodic review happens.
	-  A SIFR occurs 4 years after the initial 2-year periodic review.
	- A new 2-year periodic review happens 2 years after the SIFR.
In this case there would be six years or more between periodic reviews, which would violate our intent that periodic reviews occur no less frequently than five years.  

Because periodic review cover items different than in SIFRs, I think we should fix this, assuming I am understanding your recommendation correctly, and I think it should be easily fixable with some adjustments to wording.  Would a qualifier, like the following work:  "In case an SIFR occurs close to the end of a 5-year period after the last periodic review, the periodic review should still occur and a 2-year periodic review should occur after the 5-year periodic review."  

I am not sure my qualifying language is the best but I at least wanted to try to suggest something.

Hope this makes sense but if it doesn't please let me know.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC

Hi,

On a partial reread, I have the following comments. 
I do agree with Grace's comment that we are almost there.

On 05-Jun-15 00:07, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes the edits 
> listed below. *Your comments are requested and welcome until Sunday
> 23:59 UTC.* If you don’t have time to read the whole proposal, I’ve 
> highlighted specific areas in the document that require feedback.

>   * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of 
> footnote
>

-  i do not understand footnote 51 in the context of the current report.  It is a vestige of a time before we discussed the IFR in detail.  I think it should be removed.

>   * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?)
>
seems fine to me.



---    Does Annex H need to change based on changes made in para 133

---   An issue we discussed but not sure we closed on.

IFR Clock reset after any SCWG.  (and understanding that we could not come to consensus of changing the periodicity after an SIFR)

I think we need to reset the clock after any SCWG, no matter what outcome it may select.  If something was important enough to warrant an SCWG, its outcome needs to be reviewed 2 years later - even in case of a decision of no change)

this would require changing: 299 top row 2nd col.

> Initially, two years, then moving to every five years
>

to

Initially and after an SCWG, two years, then moving to an interval of no more than five years

(the second bit for consistency with other word in the doc)

It might also require insertion of something like the following after
126 & 385

# After the completion of a SCWG process, the IFR periodic clock will be reset to its initial state of first IFR after 2 years followed by a period of no more that five years for subsequent IFR.

thanks

avri



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship