[Iana-transition] Scope of work

Andrew Dul andrew.dul at quark.net
Tue Nov 11 17:33:16 EST 2014

On 11/10/2014 6:41 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> I see this work in various scopes of increasing size.
> scope 1: documenting the metrics and putting them in a legal framework
> scope 2: ensuring proper community over sight and modification of the
> metrics.
> scope 3: ensuring proper over sight of the IANA function (removal of
> contract)
> scope 4: ensuring proper over sight of ARIN
> scope 5: ensuring proper over sight of the ICANN Board wrt
> ratification of Global Policy Proposals
> scope 6: ensuring proper over sight of ICANN
> Scopes 1, 2 and 3 are required to transition the NTIA oversight.
> To some extent 4 may be required if 2 and 3 depend on ARIN staff, or
> ARIN board, or ARIN governance documentation, and not directly the
> membership.
> Scopes 5 and 6 are not directly impacted by the transition of NTIA
> oversight of the IANA function wrt number resources, but do relate to
> the larger question of removal of the NTIA over sight of IACNN and the
> ability of NTIA to pull the plug if things go wrong.
> I would argue we should do the following:
> 1. quickly document the SLAs
> 2. propose a straw-man for who holds the legal contract including or
> referencing the SLAs
> 3. document a process for modifying the SLA, transparently reporting
> of the SLA performance to the community
> 4. propose a straw-man for declaring (non-)compliance, and the actions
> taking up to and including removal of the contract
> 5. get community consensus on the straw-man for how holds the legal
> contract, and what is the process for declaring (non-)compliance and
> taking action.
> Complete this by the end of the month.  
> Then while the CRIP team is working on unifying the outputs of the
> communities, we should focus in on the increasing scope.
> If the ARIN membership does not own the process for modifying the
> SLAs, judging (non-)compliance, and taking action, then is there the
> proper community oversight of those that do? (This needs to be
> complete prior to the go/no-go decision of moving forward with the
> transition)
> Then beyond that, does the ARIN membership have the proper oversight
> of ARIN in general, such as changes to the ARIN mission statement,
> changes to the ARIN bylaws, and recall of board members, etc.
> Then beyond that, does the RIR membership have the proper oversight of
> the ICANN Board wrt the ratification of Global Policy.  Are we
> comfortable with the ability of the IACNN Board refusing to ratify a
> Global Policy and going to arbitration?  Are we comfortable going to
> arbitration for every new Global Policy Proposal?  Should there be
> some other ICANN Board oversight? (we need to be comfortable with
> these answers prior to the go/no-go decision of moving forward with
> the transition)
> Then if we solve all those issues, we can look more generally into the
> oversight of ICANN.

A good summary of what work is likely before us in the coming year(s). 
A more immediate question might be what needs to be done in the next
couple of weeks before the CRISP group starts its formal work? 

Or to the members of the CRISP group from this region, what discussion
do you still think needs to happen in this region before the global work


More information about the Iana-transition mailing list