[CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template

[Greg Shatan]

It seems fairly clear that changes *necessitated* by the transition
(because the NTIA is gone) will need to be made.  It would be good to be
clear on what those are.  David, do you have some examples?  Do we need to
check in with the IANA staff to clarify what pieces will be missing that
must lead to internal changes at IANA?

Making necessary changes should not be too controversial, although *what* the
change might be could be controversial.  But first we need to identify
those points where change is inevitable.

I agree with Chris that the Design Team should concentrate on determining
what needs to change within IANA as a result of this transition, not what
could be changed, so long as we are doing this transition thing.

Additional changes that are good for everybody should be fairly
non-controversial as well, except for workload considerations (which lead
to time considerations).  Given our time sensitivity, those considerations
cannot be easily dismissed.  Some type of "cost/benefit" analysis might be
helpful here (with "time" and "effort" being the primary costs -- unless
there are dollar costs involved as well, which could be an even bigger
issue).

There may also be additional changes that are viewed positively by the
direct customers but not so positively by other stakeholders in the names
community.  I don't have any examples off the top of my head, but if they
do occur, they should be parked until after the transition.

If there's a feeling that additional changes (beyond those necessitated by
the facts of the transition) need to be made now because stakeholders have
"leverage," or its the "one bite at the apple," then that is troubling for
a bigger reason.  That means that some believe we will not achieve a goal
of long-term accountability by the managers of the IANA function to the
names community in general, and the direct customers specifically.
 (Alternatively, it means people are pushing stuff through now that would
never be acceptable later, and that's even more troubling.)  I agree with
Andrew that it is much important (and much more in scope) to design a
system where evolutionary change in IANA operations can reasonably be
expected to occur, and where stakeholder concerns will reasonably be able
to drive change, than it is to effect a non-transition-essential change
just because the time seems ripe.  I am not as inalterably opposed to
considering some such changes as Andrew appears to be, but I am highly
prejudiced against them because of their ability to slow us down and throw
us off course.

Greg

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:00 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org> wrote:

> Alan,
>
> > I do have a problem with requirement which would force internal changes
> within IANA at the same time as the transition is going on. That violates
> the rule of making as few changes as possible in parallel.
>
> Apologies for being repetitive, but just to be sure, one more time with
> emphasis:
>
> Internal changes at IANA _must_ occur with the transition because NTIA is
> integrated into IANA operations.
>
> The process and possibly the code by which root zone updates are made
> _must_ change.  This _may_ impact the SLEs as specified in C.4.2 of the
> current IANA Function Contract and hence could impact the outcome of the
> Design Team.
>
> It may be appropriate to minimize the internal changes required within
> IANA during the transition, but there already exists a requirement for some
> change.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150301/a18b7c31/attachment-0001.html>