Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On May 19, 2015, at 1:46 AM, Richard Hill <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ...
> PTI as currently conceived is not independent of ICANN, so the proposed
> transition for names is not at all comparable to the proposed transition for
> protocol parameters and numbers.

Richard - you are correct.  The best I’ve been able to accomplish in building a mental
model of the names portion of the proposed IANA stewardship plan has been as follows:

   “The community affected by the IANA names registry intends to use ICANN 
    as their overall representative structure, and thus will (via the CCWG efforts) 
    fortify ICANN’s accountability to that community and will have ICANN (via the 
    CWG efforts) not directly perform IANA functions but instead create a separate
    affiliate (PTI) to be a vendor to the names community (via ICANN) for IANA 
    names registry services.”

While similar, this is not the approach taken by the protocol parameter or Internet numbers 
communities (who instead have clear and independent representative structures) and hence
probably not the direction I personally would have proposed if given the problem to solve.

Of course, whether the proposed approach to the problem matches my (or the IETF’s) 
expectations is not really germane - it apparently matches the expectations of the names
community, and the note from the ICG suggests that some aspects would benefit from 
review by the IETF due to potential interaction with the IETF’s plans for IANA services 
(see the attached 29 April 2015 email from Alissa in her capacity as ICG Co-Chair)

> I have some trouble understanding exactly what problem the creation of PTI
> is supposed to solve.


The names community WG for the IANA stewardship transition planning (CWG) believes
that the creation of the PTI (plus strengthening of ICANN via the CCWG reforms) should
meet their requirements.   There’s actually quite a few mailing lists and fairly intense work
process going over in that WG (7+ design teams, 50+ teleconferences, etc.) and hence
participating over there would likely be the best place for the enlightenment you seek - 
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions>>

Note that the charter of this working group (IANAplan WG) includes the following - 

"Should proposals made by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA 
functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the IETF, the WG may also 
review and comment on them.”    As such, it would be in scope for the IANAplan working
group to review & comment on how the CWG proposal affects the IETF protocol parameter
registries (particularly with respect to the ICG identified aspects), if it choses to do so….

The public comment period on the CWG draft closes on 23:59 UTC 20 May 2015 - 
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>>

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.   this email composed of 100% recycled electrons.

===  ICG to IANAplan regarding CWG proposal availability & noting specific aspects 

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions
> Date: April 29, 2015 at 9:25:32 AM EDT
> To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <[e-mail]>
> 
> Dear IETF community,
> 
> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>>. We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community:
> 
> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A)
> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities.
> 
> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III)
> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications:
> 
> * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated.
> 
> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.
> 
> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board.
> 
> * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities.
> 
> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F)
> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews.
> 
> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I)
> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities.
> 
> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G)
> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. 
> 
> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan