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

Sun Jun 7 22:30:57 UTC 2015

I think we are complicating things with the timing of reviews.  It will be
more predictable to have the periodic reviews stay on schedule, regardless
of a SIFR.  I would suggest that the next periodic IFR (PIFR?) after a SIFR
should specifically examine whether the remediation that came out of the
SIFR continued to work in a satisfactory manner.

The only exception would be if a SIFR resulting in SCWG and ultimately in a
new IFO (replacing PTI).  In this case, the new IFO should be subject to a
PIFR two years after commencing operations.

Greg

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 12:45 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> I would support the SCWG making a recommendation on it as the landscape
> may change post an SCWG depending on the outcome. The SCWG would be in the
> best position to make an informed fact based decision at that time rather
> than us making it based on hypotheticals now.
>
> -James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on
> Sunday at 23:59 UTC
>
> Hi
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> I was asking whether we consider resetting the IFR timer for post SCWG.
>
> We had the conversation about post SIFR and lots of arguments were made
> both ways, with neither prevailing; so I left that issue alone.
>
> The idea about doing it post SCWG, is that even if the SCWG were to result
> in no-change, whatever would have been going on at the time, would have
> been serious enough for the SCWG to have been triggered.  It therefore
> seems that this would be a good time to rest the clock back to time 0 (i.e.
> this transition).
>
> On the other hand, perhaps this decision could be left to the SCWG to
> recommend, just as a SIFR or IFR could recommend a changed timing.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 07-Jun-15 11:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > 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
>
>
> ---
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150607/dfc64b17/attachment.html>