[CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Jun 8 16:40:36 UTC 2015
Avri,
I think the SCWG should not have absolute discretion to recommend a
timeframe. They would still have to abide by the "no less than every 5
years" rule. Within the confines of the rule, they could have discretion
to recommend a timeframe for the next PIFR. However, I still think it's
overkill to accelerate a comprehensive PIFR instead of conducting a focused
follow-up review of the remediation.
Greg
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree that we should not be creating yet another mechanism and wheher
> we reset timers of not, we do not create something new to handle a post
> SCWG review.
>
> To Chuck's point, if we leave the periodicity of reviews post a SCWG to
> the SCWG, they could decide that 5 years is much too frequent. I am
> fine with leaving the future open to the future on issue of timer
> duration if others are.
>
> In recommending a return to Transition rules, I hoped I was recommending
> something simple that required few extra words in the proposal. Just as
> I believe we should not be adding new mechanisms, I also believe that we
> should not be adding a lot of complicating text at this point.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 08-Jun-15 10:53, Matthew Shears wrote:
> > Thanks Greg - I think this makes sense. On the Follow-up Reviews, I
> > agree that the PIFR should not be accelerated to do it, but why
> > wouldn't IFR still undertake the review? I don't think we should be
> > creating a new body to do so.
> >
> > On 6/8/2015 10:42 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> >> My suggestion is that the periodic IFRs should stay on the same
> >> schedule (like Olympics or World Cups or Presidential elections)
> >> regardless of any SIFRs. So, if the transition takes places in 2015,
> >> the first (2 year) IFR would take place in 2017, and then every 5
> >> years thereafter (in this example, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, etc.),
> >> unless a new IFO is put in place, replacing PTI. In this case, the
> >> clock should reset, so that there is a 2 year IFR, followed by
> >> successive 5 year IFRs (as above).
> >>
> >> *Follow-up Reviews: *SIFRs are different than PIFRs because they are
> >> triggered by a material deficiency, and they are aimed at resolving
> >> that deficiency. Therefore, I suggest that after a SIFR (or a SCWG
> >> that does not result in a new IFO), a targeted follow-up should take
> >> place to determine whether the deficiency was in fact satisfactorily
> >> resolved. A full PIFR is not the right tool to do so, and should not
> >> be accelerated to serve as such. I would suggest that this Follow-up
> >> Review should take place 1 year after the end of the SIFR or SCWG
> >> process.
> >>
> >> Greg
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com
> >> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I definitely think we should keep it as simple as possible and
> >> maybe having the SCWG make recommendations as to any clock
> >> resetting is one way to keep it simpler. I definitely don't
> >> think that periodic reviews should ever happen less frequently
> >> than every five years.
> >>
> >> 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: Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:32 PM
> >> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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>
> >> > <mailto: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>>
> >> > [mailto: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>
> >> <mailto: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>>
> >> > > [mailto: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>
> >> <mailto: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>
> >> <mailto: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>
> >> <mailto: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>
> >> <mailto: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
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> 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
> >
> > --
> > Matthew Shears
> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> > + 44 (0)771 247 2987
>
>
> ---
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150608/22520829/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list