[CRISP-TEAM] Discussions in names: possible relavence to numbers Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


Is anyone following this closely on CWG for names?

While I have not had time to fully review this in details, this proposal
seems to propose a more coordinated approach, to have New IANA Board,
composed of representatives from names, numbers, protocol communities.

I see Andrew Sullivan from IAB, expressing concerns about this suggested
approach, in his personal capacity.

See "Update on the Integrated model" thread for details.
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/subject.html

The latest post from Andew Sullivan is:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001866.html




Izumi


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:09:28 -0500
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>

Hi,

As mentioned in an earlier email, Matthew Shears, Brenden Kuerbis and I
have been working on a model that attempts to integrate solutions to
some of the various sets of concerns by those favoring internal models
and those preferring  external models while trying to make the model
simpler and more accountable to the IANA ecosystem and the wider
community.  During Singapore week we spoke to as many as we could about
this model and have received, and worked through, a number of comments
on the open  drive draft document, which we announced on the list.

The working draft, which is still a work in progress and remains open
for comment can be found at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5YZCU/edit?usp=sharing

I have attached a pdf version of a snapshot draft of the doc as of today.

We would like to be able to present this at the next RFP3 meeting.  Or
anywhere else that is appropriate.

We are also working on drafts to document the means by which this model
responds to NTIA requirements, but we will able to speak those on list
and during the meeting.

In the draft we present three possible configurations for the model.
The authors believe that Shared Service Arrangement (page 6) is the
preferred configuration, as it offers the most accountability for the
least amount of change or complexity.  We would also be interested to
see how these models fare under the stress testing - we have not done
that in any focused way yet, though we have kept those tests in mind.

It should be noted that this model would require a minimal amount of
accommodation by the Protocols and Number communities, but believe that
this accommodation while not disturbing their current model in any
significant way would make IANA more accountable to them as well.

Thanks

avri






-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Integrated-Model-150218.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 657143 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150223/e5b5bbf3/Integrated-Model-150218.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship