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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sun Jun 7 23:55:32 UTC 2015


All:

I have attached my comments to Annex S (the Term Sheet) of Transition
Proposal v3.

Greg

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/c30d3a79/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FinalTransitionProposal_v3 with GSS edits.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 1417837 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150607/c30d3a79/FinalTransitionProposal_v3withGSSedits-0001.docx>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list