Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function on Thursday, 08 January 2015 at 14:00 UTC
Terri Agnew:meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/mo4QAw
Gordon Chillcott:I'll stay muted for a bit, to check.
Terri Agnew:Thank you Gordon
Jean-Jacques Subrenat:Hello All.
Fatima Cambronero:hello everyone
Carlton Samuels:Howdy all
Tom Lowenhaupt:Ho do you reload the agenda?
Janvier Ngnoulaye:Hi to Call
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:reload on your browser, Tom
Heidi Ullrich:Welcome ,All!
Terri Agnew:Welcome Lori Taylor
Terri Agnew:**Loris Taylor
Eduardo Diaz:¡Hola a todos!
Terri Agnew:Action Items 23 December 2014: https://community.icann.org/x/BIkQAw
Loris Taylor:Good Morning!
April Tinhorn:Buenos dias, Eduardo!
April Tinhorn:Good day, All.
Terri Agnew:Welcome Seun Ojedeji
Heidi Ullrich:Welcome, April!
Seun Ojedeji:Thanks Terri
Seun Ojedeji:can i have a dial-out?
Terri Agnew:IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Issues Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process and Updated Transition Process Timeline: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-07-en
Loris Taylor:All: April Tinhorn is the new policy manager for Native Public Media.
Terri Agnew:Welcome Avri Doria
Terri Agnew:At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function: https://community.icann.org/x/OYThAg
Terri Agnew:We are dialing out to Sean at this time
Terri Agnew:CRISP: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team
Terri Agnew:Welcome Sivasubramanian M
Janvier Ngnoulaye:Thanks Tijani
Terri Agnew:Seun is on audio
Seun Ojedeji:here now
Loris Taylor:I am hearing typing in the background.
Janvier Ngnoulaye:Thanks Seun
Terri Agnew:• Last Call for comments on IETF Transition proposal: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2014-November/000721.html
Sivasubramanian M:hello Terri, Thanks
Janvier Ngnoulaye:@Lorris: May be the Staff must automatically mute all the microphones
Seun Ojedeji:+1 :-)
Terri Agnew:RFP 4 : https://community.icann.org/x/EyrxAg
Carlton Samuels:@IETF: Not a core problem but we can learn from their angst!
Avri Doria:an ietf appeal hass many stages. to the chair, then to the iesg, then to the IAB , and then (on process only) to the isoc board
Carlton Samuels:The issue is and remains 'separability in context of accountability'.
Sivasubramanian M:Yes Olivier, please wait for a while till I get a phone call
Terri Agnew:RFP 5: https://community.icann.org/x/FSrxAg
Janvier Ngnoulaye:@Carlton: Yes, since IETF proposal is more tech, we can always learn from their answsers
Terri Agnew:@cheryl we are unable to hear you
Sivasubramanian M:not yet olivier
Heidi Ullrich:Hi all, apologies for not having Siva on the call
Heidi Ullrich:we are dialing out to him now
Heidi Ullrich:He had asked me in a private chat, but I didn't see it in time.
Carlton Samuels:@Janvier: You get the nuanced view! The technical argument will be simply the best wedge against the political argument
Terri Agnew:@all, Siva is on audio
Terri Agnew:CWG CSC/MRT Survey: http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he
Terri Agnew:Welcome Leon Sanchez
Janvier Ngnoulaye:@Carlton: true
Leon Sanchez:thanks @Terri
Leon Sanchez:sorry for coming in late. hello everyone
Seun Ojedeji:I sugegst we discuss one by one
Janvier Ngnoulaye:+1 @fatima for the question
Terri Agnew:@Siva we are dialilng back out to you
Loris Taylor:How willl the results of the survey be used?
Seun Ojedeji:Difficult indeed
Fatima Cambronero:the million dollar question :)
Carlton Samuels:The solution has always been before us! The power dynamics cannot change all that much. Our Uncle Sam would be really not upto scratch if it did. I keep on telling y'all that benign as you think it is, the big issue really was the suzerian power of the USG that is vested in current arrangement. That is the case until the USG changes the strategic view of the Internet; 'it is in the national security interest of the United States'. It always is about how we retain the 'full faith and credit of the United States Government'. The solution must be one that for public dissemination 'feel the hand of Esau even as we hear the voice of Jacob'. What is required is to breadcrumb the 'internal solution' in this context and you get the prize.
Loris Taylor:A survey is very different from a position statement. So Iam wondering whether the survey opens up a variance of positions rather than a consolidated position.
Sivasubramanian M:Heidi Thanks for the dial out. I noticed a peculiar problem, during this and the previous ccwg call, when I recieve a call from the operator and stay connected on the phone bridge, the 3G connection on the phone gets interruppted. Wonder how and why this happens, 3G got disconnected, and in the android phone even the mobile network settings faded out to be inaccessible.
Sivasubramanian M:So staying with adobe Sorry for the distraction on the chat window, but thought this might be of peripheral interest on technical administrative matters
Avri Doria:haven't they initiated a 2 track on the two forms of model?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Avri: I believe they have but isn't this a pretty recent development?
Avri Doria:today. though it has been leading up to this.
Avri Doria:so now is the time for people who support eh intenal model of sperabilty &c. to define it is detail. then we can begine complexity analysis and comparison &c.
Alan Greenberg:@avri, it has been suggested and there was some support (and some opposition) but it is not clear how this will work.
Avri Doria:the openning to do it it there. grab it and run with it.
Sivasubramanian M:1 No CSC
Sivasubramanian M:No No No
Fatima Cambronero:if we have different answers, then we discuss them
Janvier Ngnoulaye:I saw that the "Name" is mandatory. The survey should keep the anonymity, to increase the credibility of the data. I think the duplication problem can be solved otherwise.
Sivasubramanian M:CSC with an another kind of scope, Yes
Seun Ojedeji:for the first i am for "IS acceptable" and the second i will suggest "agree"
Sivasubramanian M:CSC with just enough role to ensure that the IANA technical operations remain dumb
Terri Agnew:Welcome Glenn McKnight
Fatima Cambronero:for me the difference between the options of #5 is external or internal entity/body
Glenn McKnight:I thought the call was at 10 today
Sivasubramanian M:and that the technical operations are carried out efficiently enough to ensure that the Customers are not affected, sort of observer role, with powers to alert, to provide technical help, expertise.
Carlton Samuels:@CSC support: That is one the ALAC should be prepared top concede in the larger context.
Sivasubramanian M:If there are to be multistakeholders, are these multistakeholders multistakeholder-customers? If not, how would you call it CSC ?
Carlton Samuels:Keep your eye on the prize!
Carlton Samuels:@Sivas: The explanation Alan gave is sufficient. This group has two components; 1) It is focused on the immediate customers of IANA 2) It addresses a narrow technical objective
Carlton Samuels:@Alan: +1! That's the way to think of it. Where it goes depends on the larger context
Sivasubramanian M:What if Registries are allowed a more than proportionate representation in a mutlistakeholder Committee that would act as one layer of oversight on technical efficiency of the IANA Operator who provides the backend?
Seun Ojedeji:I am concerned that we are still on the first question ;-)
Eduardo Diaz:Then I will say is acceptable
Eduardo Diaz:the second question
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Seun: me too -- time is ticking...
Eduardo Diaz:is acceptable means that you do not care which way it goes. Saying no it means outside
Fatima Cambronero:"the CSC should be an ICANN working group" < yes or no? agree or disagree? I cannot understand your comments...
Fatima Cambronero:@Seun, @Olivier, me too. Please don't explain every detaill of each question. Tell us the answer
Fatima Cambronero:then we can discuss the detaills
Sivasubramanian M:Continuing on what I said about CSC being a technical oversight layer on a certain level, wouldn't it be appropriate to drop the word customer, while allowing a more than proportionate representation to the customers>
Sivasubramanian M:?
Carlton Samuels:@OCL: It is VERY important to understand the nuances of this CSC given all that swirls around it. Especially the role the ALAC [At-Large] may play
Seun Ojedeji:no response?
Fatima Cambronero:agree option 2
Sivasubramanian M:CSC by a different name, could act as a "Stability" layer for technical assurance
Fatima Cambronero:in my case, I disagree with option 3
Seun Ojedeji:4 and 2 seem similar
Avri Doria:some argue that the CSC shiould include experts as well as direct constomers, that is in later questions.
Carlton Samuels:@Alan: "multistakeholder input" is a different kettle from "multistakeholder membership component"
Fatima Cambronero:agree @Carlton
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Tijani
Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Tijani +1.
Fatima Cambronero:+1
Fatima Cambronero::)
Jean-Jacques Subrenat:Similarly, I still think that putting forward "consumer" instead of "user" is exclusive, not inclusive.
Seun Ojedeji:i will suggest "its acceptable"
Sivasubramanian M:5 yes but add At Large
Glenn McKnight:Agreed add ALAC
Avri Doria:well you could add a note saying that user experts should be included.
Fatima Cambronero:agree @Seun
Fatima Cambronero:it is better than option 3
Seun Ojedeji:hahahaha
Fatima Cambronero:I am doing so as well @Olivier
Seun Ojedeji:+1
Fatima Cambronero:5 disagree
Sivasubramanian M:7 MRT requires administrative expertise while CSC requires technical expertise
Avri Doria:warned until people got sick of me.
Sivasubramanian M:MRT is more of a judicial function, while the underlying idea, not so well expressed so far, behind CSC is assuranace of the continuity and stability of IANA function operations
Seun Ojedeji:well i think maybe that one was intentionally done, because they would have seperated it
Fatima Cambronero:6 acceptable
Fatima Cambronero:I don't understand that option. Can someone explain it?
Seun Ojedeji:which one @Fatima?
Fatima Cambronero:7.7
Seun Ojedeji:its basically saying CSC should be formed from MRT
Avri Doria:mrt and CSC might be different skill sets.
Gordon Chillcott:Agree with Alan
Sivasubramanian M:+1 Avri
Sivasubramanian M:And agree with ALAN
Fatima Cambronero:8 agree
Seun Ojedeji:+1 strongly agree
Alan Greenberg:Rearranging deck chairs on the deck of the Titanic comes to mind....
Jean-Jacques Subrenat:Because of another obligation, I'll be signing off at 15 minutes past the hour.
Seun Ojedeji:quite challenging question @Tijani
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to @Olivier's comment
Avri Doria:chairs group + some designed the qsurvey and RFP3 reviewd it, sort of.
Seun Ojedeji:+1
Avri Doria:shouldn't they also be able to go to the IAP?
Fatima Cambronero:users=customers? or is differentt?
Seun Ojedeji:i think it is @Fatimata
Seun Ojedeji:*fatima*
Fatima Cambronero::) thanks @Seun
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Eduardo
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Tijani i mean
Seun Ojedeji:we should follow existing processes
Alan Greenberg:@avri IAP would only be when things get rreally bad. It is not to address operational issues I would think. It will be (on a relative scale) slow and expensive.
Seun Ojedeji:MRT should be seen as last resort when everything fails
Alan Greenberg:All these questions are asking if we should add useless (or worse) bureacracy
Seun Ojedeji:sorry it seem some of these questions are repetitive ;-)
Fatima Cambronero:so the steps would be CSC > MRT > IAP?
Seun Ojedeji:IAP could be what MRT will utilise
Seun Ojedeji:+1 @Fatima
Eduardo Diaz:+1
Glenn McKnight:Alan is right on the role
Seun Ojedeji:+1 Olivier ;-)
Sivasubramanian M Phone:for issues to be routed through CSC or MRT, these structures would require a staff structure on their own and a full fledged and ongoing administrative machinery, so we could recommend away from proposals to route issues through MRT or CSC
Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Fatima about customers/users. Customers is a word favoured by the Domain Name Businesses. Users is a work we should favour, because this implies user rights, and not only a contractual relation between the provider of a service, and its client.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat:Signing off.
Fatima Cambronero:thanks @JJ for this clarification
Fatima Cambronero:sorry I lost, 15 agree or disagree?
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Olivier
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Alan on disagree
Fatima Cambronero:thanks!
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:9.15 = Disagree
Seun Ojedeji:9.16 is disagree for me, the community should be involved in reviewing/developing the SLA
Fatima Cambronero:18 acceptable for me
Seun Ojedeji:@Fatima its disagree for me because there are existing process to checking policy implementation
Fatima Cambronero:I understand your point @Seun about policy implementation
Tom Lowenhaupt:Need to depart. Thanks all for your efforts.
Sivasubramanian M Phone:on both options, CSC addressing policy issues and b) CSC referring issues to MRT AFTER it finds it difficult to reconcile issues on its own, the implication is that the scope of CSC is expanded
Seun Ojedeji:@Alan i would not even think attempting to resolve will be ideal for CSC, they are supposed to be reporting team (but unless its internal to ICANN)
Sivasubramanian M Phone:considering the fact that CSC is to be largely composed of customers, such an expansion in scope would create a sensitive imbalance
Sivasubramanian M Phone:Olivier your audio is good. If you haven't moved on please read the reasons typed as two paragraphs
Gordon Chillcott:Agree
Alan Greenberg:@Seun, most problems are going to be accidental or a new person taking over a function and not being properly trained. We need to fix these problems as quickly as possible and with as little bureacracy as possible. Ig it were to go to an MRT that might not meet often, the delay could be unreasonable.
Fatima Cambronero:acceptable
Gordon Chillcott:Acceptable
Seun Ojedeji:fair enough @Alan
Loris Taylor:If the survey questions are dependent on the strutural model, I think the questions will need to be revisited. Or perhaps these questions should be asked for each proposed structure. If not, we will need to provide a great deal of explanations and comments.
Fatima Cambronero:12.1 agree
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Alan that one is not very clear
Eduardo Diaz:I am not sure what i* means
Fatima Cambronero:I* RIRs, ISOC, etc
Seun Ojedeji:looks like we skipped 11
Seun Ojedeji:of was it me that missed it?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: @Seun: yes :-)
Fatima Cambronero:12.1 was totally agree or agree
Seun Ojedeji:Okay so i missed it...but can someone tell me what we determined for the 2 questions in 11?
Sivasubramanian M Phone:I sort of disagree. because we can work on balancing and corrective processes without prophesizing scenarios where the fundamental agreement on ICANN as the global, MS organization for Names AND Numbers is threatened.
Sivasubramanian M Phone: that was on the earlier point
Fatima Cambronero:acceptable Seun
Eduardo Diaz:I will say strongly disagree or no response duru to not understanding the question and add a commnet at the end stating the confision
Seun Ojedeji:Thanks @Fatima
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:11A first part = A second part is A or IA
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:A = agree. IA = Is Acceptable
Seun Ojedeji:Thanks
Terri Agnew 2:Cheryl has dropped from telephone to join another call but still on AC audio for Iana issues
Seun Ojedeji:Okay Olivier
Fatima Cambronero:I understood the same to you @Eduardo
Sivasubramanian M Phone:MRT needs to be at least as much "hands off" as NTIA
Fatima Cambronero:13.9 disagree
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Fatima
Gordon Chillcott:I am leaning toward Tijani's argument . . .
Seun Ojedeji:lost audio
Seun Ojedeji:can i be dialed back?
Terri Agnew:@Seun, yes
Fatima Cambronero:14.11 disagree
Fatima Cambronero:14.12 agree?
Fatima Cambronero:I lost the answer
Fatima Cambronero:I can stay in the Adobe in English channel
Seun Ojedeji:okay back
Fatima Cambronero:I am the only one in the Spanish channel
Fatima Cambronero:thanks Sabrina & Veronica!
Fatima Cambronero:15.17 totatlly disagree
Loris Taylor:Will survey notes from todays call be sent out to us?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Loris -- yes -- in mnemonic, I think
Fatima Cambronero:+1 Alan
Gordon Chillcott:+1 Eduardo
Fatima Cambronero:so 16.20 agree
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I've been dropped
Terri Agnew:@Olivier, dialing back out to you
Fatima Cambronero:only 3 questions. Go!
Fatima Cambronero::)
Seun Ojedeji::-)
Gordon Chillcott:Agree
Seun Ojedeji:@Alan i thought we should not imply too much representation
Sivasubramanian M Phone:Alan is there any other CW meeting in 8 minutes ? coomunity-wide?
Alan Greenberg:No, a private meeting
Seun Ojedeji:No opinion for me on 16.21
Seun Ojedeji:please tell me that one is not now :-)
Seun Ojedeji:good observation @Eduardo
Sivasubramanian M Phone:sorry Alan Heard only meeting thought I missed a mail on one of the cw meetings
Seun Ojedeji:is the second one already up for comment?
Fatima Cambronero:yes @Seun
Seun Ojedeji:Sign..... :)
Fatima Cambronero::)
Loris Taylor:Thank you!
Seun Ojedeji:Thanks Olivier it was good we went through it
Seun Ojedeji:very ueful
Seun Ojedeji:*useful*
Fatima Cambronero:thank you very much @Sabrina and @Veronica!
Sivasubramanian M Phone:please also post the link to this survey as there are so many happening
Gordon Chillcott:Thanks, Olivier
Leon Sanchez:bye everyone
Seun Ojedeji:bye
Eduardo Diaz:Make sure you answer the survey today
Glenn McKnight:bye
Leon Sanchez:thanks all
Fatima Cambronero:thanks @Olivier, all. Bye
April Tinhorn:Thank you.
