[CRISP-TEAM] CWG-Stewardship proposal 3rd draft: IFR & IFRT
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon Jun 15 19:12:46 CEST 2015
Just as a gentle reminder -
I'd like to share our observations with the ICG members representing the NRO (Alan and Paul) tomorrow 16th June.
Please share your additional feedback and your input would be very helpful.
Many thanks Nurani for these feedback.
On 2015/06/15 15:24, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> Izumi and I discussed the CWG proposal and its review process last week, so I spent some time on the weekend to read the 3rd draft of the CWG-Stewardship and focused on the text about the IANA functions review.
> In our meetings with the CWG chairs, they have been very clear about that they had developed the CWG proposal very conscious of the two proposals already on the table, striving for as little conflict as possible. However I must say it is not entirely clear to me that their text is only talking about names all the time. The CSC text clearly states that they are only reviewing the naming functions, but the IFR and IFRT text is not that clear.
> III.A.i. Proposed Post-Transition Structure
> "The ability for the multistakeholder community to require ���
> the selection of a new operator for the IANA Functions as
> they relate to names.���
> -> Ok great. Here it only talks about names.
> Then it goes on to talk about the PTI having all three functions, and it says that clearer here than previous drafts:
> "While this proposal originates from within the names
> community, it anticipates that, for reasons of coherence
> of the IANA function and overall operational logistics,
> all of the IANA functions will be transferred to PTI.���
> Then it talks about the Statement of Work:
> 01 "IANA Contract and Statement of Work
> The issues currently addressed in the NTIA ICANN Functions
> Contract and related documents would be addressed in the
> ICANN-PTI IANA functions contract.���
> -> It doesn���t clearly say that the SOW only covers the IANA Names function here���
> "The IFR would be obliged to take into account multiple
> input sources including community comments, CSC evaluations,
> reports submitted by PTI, and recommendations for technical
> or process improvements (see Customer Standing Committee
> section below).���
> Ok, so there���s more input than from the CSC into the IFR then���
> "The IFR mandate is strictly limited to evaluation of PTI
> performance against the SOW���
> Ok, so this means only how it performs according to the contract. No policy or anything else.
> Then in Annex F it goes into more detail about the review:
> "Annex F ��� IANA Function Reviews - Statement of Work Duration
> and Review Periodicity
> ...the CWG-Stewardship recommends that the review of PTI���s
> performance against the ICANN-PTI contract and the IANA
> Statement of Work (IANA SOW) for the naming functions���
> -> Ok great, here it says only naming when reviewing the performance against the SOW!
> Then it starts including lots of other things in its scope:
> 01 "Scope of IANA Function Reviews
> At minimum, the IANA Function Review would consider the following:
> The performance of the IANA Functions Operator against the
> requirements set forth in the IANA SOW;
> Any necessary additions to the IANA SOW to account for the
> needs of consumers of the IANA naming functions or the ICANN
> community at large;���
> -> What are the needs of the ICANN community at large?
> "Openness/transparency procedures for the IANA Functions
> Operator and any oversight structures, including reporting
> requirements and budget transparency;
> The effectiveness of new structures created to carry out
> IANA oversight in monitoring performance and handling issues
> with the IANA Functions Operator;
> The relative performance of the IANA Functions pre- and post-
> transition according to established service levels; and
> Discussion of process or other improvements (where relevant
> to the mandate of the IANA Function Review) suggested by the
> CSC or community.
> -> What does this mean? And again, are we only talking about IANA naming functions or the IANA functions in general?
> "01 At minimum, the following inputs would be considered as a part of the review:
> o The current IANA SOW.
> o Regular reports provided by the IANA Functions Operator���
> �� o Inputs by the CSC���
> o Community inputs through Public Consultation Procedures
> defined by the IANA Function Review Team, potentially
> �� - Public comment periods.
> �� - Input at in-person sessions during ICANN meetings.
> - Responses to public surveys related to IANA Functions Operator
> performance; and
> -�� Public inputs during meetings of the IANA Function Review Team."
> -> It sounds here like we are talking about a much broader review process than just the IANA naming services as evaluated by the CSC. Annex I and J then outlines a process which only relates to names, but I am not entirely sure that the IFRT only will do a review based on the needs in the names community, and that it will only affect the names.
> It is quite possible that they only mean the names community and the naming part of the IANA functions, but there���s a lot of ambiguous language in there still. It would be good to get a 100% clear answer on this before we can say whether or not there���s a conflict between their IFRT and IFR process and ours.
> I would be interested in hearing the group���s thoughts on this.
> Kind regards,
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP