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

Lindeberg, Elise elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no
Mon Jun 8 09:46:57 UTC 2015


I agree with Greg - when he confirms  ..:)

Elise

-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne av Jonathan Robinson
Sendt: 8. juni 2015 11:14
Til: avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC

I am not sure Greg is saying exactly that.

I understand his proposal to be that the IFR's remain on the same schedule regardless.

Greg, please confirm?

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
Sent: 08 June 2015 00:32
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC

Hi,

that was exactly what I proposed.

SCWG -> reset IFR timer.

cheers

avri


On 07-Jun-15 18:30, Greg Shatan 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 
> <mailto: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>
>     [mailto: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 <mailto: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>
>     > [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>     _______________________________________________
>     CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>     CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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


---
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


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list