[CWG-Stewardship] Transition ProposalHi, v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Tue Jun 9 13:23:50 UTC 2015
The flow looks fine to me as long as the regular IFRs occur no less frequently than every 5 years after the initial IFR.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 5:47 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
Johnathan, Greg,
My understanding of what Avri and me are proposing (Avri may correct me), I think for this kind of thing laying it out visually can help understand it better:
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D0A295.F630BB40]
-James
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 10:14 AM
To: avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>; 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
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<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>> 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>] 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>
> 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>] 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>
> > 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>
> > 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>
> 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>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/98a200c0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23684 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/98a200c0/image001-0001.jpg>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list