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

James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
Mon Jun 8 10:08:58 UTC 2015


Yes unless the SIFR and/or the SCWG specifically recommends resetting the IFR timer, it continues to count down as normal would be the most practical solution.

-James

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lindeberg, Elise
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 11:03 AM
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC

That is  - I thought we agreed on the last call that we shouldn't let the two processes interfere with each other at this stage. The Special IFR and the periodic IFR are different in mandate. In my mind we decided that the best option was to keep them separated for now - but be careful with language so that we didn't stop any practical solution for the cases where a SIFR occurs just before PIFR.

Elise 


-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne av Lindeberg, Elise
Sendt: 8. juni 2015 11:47
Til: jrobinson at afilias.info; 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 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
_______________________________________________
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