Page History
...
Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji (12)
Participants: Alan Greenberg, Alissa Cooper, Alan MacGIllivray, Andrew Sullivan, Chuck Gomes, Greg DiBiase, Jari Arkko, John Poole, Jorge Cancio, Maarten Simon, Mark Carvell, Markus Kummer, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Rudi Vansnick, Suzanne Woolf (16)
Legal Counsel: Josh Hofheimer, Sharon Flanagan
Staff: Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings
Apologies: Leon Sanchez
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Agenda
1. Opening Remarks
2. IANA IPR Discussion
a. ICANN statement
b. Coordination with CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG
c. Our position in the CWG-Stewardship?
d. Way forward
3. Bylaws Matrix
a. Sidley presentation of the Matrix
b. Coordination with CCWG-Accountability
4. SLEWG Update
5. AOB
Progress on CWG input to CCWG Public Comment?
Notes
1. Opening Remarks
- Need a position on IANA IPR before the close of the ICG Public Comment
- Need to ensure that the CCWG-Acct proposal is in line with the CWG requirements. Part of this involves the Bylaws matrix that Sidley has prepared.
- The SLE/SLAs for the names community also need to be finalized.
2. IANA IPR Discussion
- In BA, there was some concern over the draft text in the CWG proposal -- the text appeared to be in conflict with the other communities. We issued a statement to clarify that the text was draft only. We intended to deal with IPR further in implementation.
- Received a memo on IPR issues from Sidley on 4 August.
- Jonathan and Lise held coordination call with the Chairs of the other communities. These were productive and helpful.
- ICANN Board issued a statement on Saturday 15 August.
- On Monday, Chairs held another coordination call and followed up with a note to the CWG-Stewardship
- ICG Chairs and CRISP Chairs have responded positively on the mailing list and clarified questions/issues where needed.
- Agreement on a neutral/independent trust and the communities can focus on requirements for this trust during implementation.
- Olivier Crepin Leblond clarified that the At-Large Working Group on IANA Transition is in agreement with the concept of the independent trust (although they would have preferred that ICANN continue to hold these marks).
- Greg Shatan agrees with proposed position
- Next step: communicate this position to the ICG through the Public Comment and to the other communities involved.
- Martin Boyle noted that the IFO will need to have operational control of the IANA.ORG and associated domain names. This is a requirement that needs to be clarified in the agreement.
Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities.
In future (likely after submission of ICG Proposal to NTIA):
- CWG to focus on clarifying requirements/criteria for the independent/neutral trust
- Work with other communities during implementation to make sure requirements/criteria are met.
3. Bylaws Matrix
Sidley produced a Bylaws Matrix on 11 August.
Drafted from the CWG perspective (even though counsel is also working with the CCWG)
PTI Governance
Do we need all governance aspects to be fundamental bylaws? These are important bylaws but it is possible that not all need to be fundamental.
If there were even a need to change the membership of PTI, this could be a decision not just by ICANN but also by the Community Mechanism.
Sharon notes that, for drafting purposes, the decision of whether bylaws are standard or fundamental is not necessary.
ICANN Budget and IANA Budget
The CWG had "approve or veto" but the CCWG has agreed to a veto process. The CWG needs to confirm that this veto is workable. Lise confirmed that based on the mailing list discussions, the CWG has confirmed that the veto power is workable.
Action: Review and then clarify position on "approve or veto" issue for the CCWG-Acct
Action (all): Review section 7.1 of the CCWG proposal
IANA Functions Contract
No questions or comments.
Community Empowerment Mechanisms
The CCWG's current proposal is consistent with CWG requirements
Customer Standing Committee (CSC)
No questions or comments
IANA Problem Resolution Process
No questions or comments
IANA Function Review (IFR)
No questions or comments
Sepaaration Process
No questions or comments
Appeals Mechanism
Question from Allan MacGillivray: We clearly state in the CWG proposal (see page 21 under ‘Appeal Mechanism’ that the ‘direct customers of IANA need to have access to an Independent Review Panel’. My reading of the of the CCWG proposal (see page 39 for example) is that the proposed ‘independent review process’ will apply only in respect of ICANN board and staff decisions. If correct, how do we ensure that PTI decisions are also reviewable. Does this need to be built into PTI’s bylaws?
Can a registry use the appeals mechanism to resolve an issue? Yes, The CWG report cleary indicates that individual problems and issues be reviewable. The CWG report says this: “Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions (emphasis added). For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition.”
The ccTLDs (and the CWG report) have made clear that the IRP process not apply to delegation/redelegation issues. However, the CCWG proposal currently also applies that exemption to the Reconsideration process as well. Do the CWG and ccTLDs want delegation and redelegation issues to be included in the Reconsideration process or not?
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley) suggests that this can be resolved through detailed drafting in implementation in PTI
[Root Zone Management]
No questions or comments
Fundamental Bylaws
No questions or comments
Coordination with CCWG-Accountability
Can the Client Committee proceed to instruct the legal counsel to move forward with Bylaws drafting?
--> No objection
Action: Client Committee will meet and instruct Sidley on Bylaws drafting process based on coordination with CCWG-Acct
4. SLEWG Update
- The SLEWG created a drafting subgroup on 21 May. This group consisted of Kim Davies (ICANN-IANA) and Adam Smith (Specialist on SLAs from CDNS). Bernie Turcotte provided facilitation and staff support.
- There have been over 20 revisions and drafts.
- The SLEWG held two calls this week to agree of outstanding issues (queue-jumping and non-discriminatory practice) and finalize the draft.
- There will be another call next week to review the draft before submission to the CWG.
- After CWG agreements, the document will go back to the IANA department for budget and implementation plan (with a time period for testing). This will allow for proven and tested SLEs to be implemented as part of the transition.
5. AOB
Sidley to help with CWG submission to the CCWG Public Comment.
Action Items
Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities.
Action: Review and then clarify position on "approve or veto" issue for the CCWG-Acct
Action (all): Review section 7.1 of the CCWG proposal
Action: Client Committee will meet and instruct Sidley on Bylaws drafting process based on coordination with CCWG-Acct
Transcript
Recordings
Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p45zuyxlgp6/
MP3 recording is available here:
Documents
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (8/20/2015 11:35) Hello all and welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #63 on 20 August 2015.
Lise Fuhr: (11:59) Hello all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (11:59) Hi Lise
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:59) hi all
Lise Fuhr: (11:59) Hi Cheryl - still awake ;)
Andrew Sullivan: (12:01) Hello. It seems I can hear.
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (12:02) Hello, all.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:02) Good day all
Alan Greenberg: (12:02) 63rd meeting! Next one is 2^8
Alan Greenberg: (12:03) Well, perhaps 2^6
Avri Doria: (12:09) apolgies for joining late, was on another call.
Lise Fuhr: (12:09) Hi Avri
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (12:17) My pleasure.....
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (12:21) First sight for me now after return from vacation but ICANN statement seems very helpful and practicable..
Jari Arkko: (12:22) Re: martin's comments - I believe agreements needed to provide the rights/responsibilities between the relevant parties (3 ops communities, holder, IANA operator(s). but I think that's implementation.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:23) @Jari: yes
Alan Greenberg: (12:25) Jari, I agree. But we seem to be destined to discuss it all here in detail.
Alan Greenberg: (12:25) I said "seems"
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (12:26) Things are not always what they seem. :-)
Donna Austin, RySG: (12:26) @Martin, I'm not sure how the naming community rights could be represented. Perhaps through the ccNSO and RySG, but neither has any legal status.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (12:27) Agree Jonathan
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (12:27) @Donna, I think we may need to look to some of the work that the CCWG is doing in that regard.
Alan Greenberg: (12:28) ICANN is a legal entity which includes the ccNSO and RySG as component parts.
Avri Doria: (12:28) yes, the SM, if and when created, could be invovled.
Seun Ojedeji: (12:28) Is there intention to include CWG openness to see IETF trust as an option as well
Seun Ojedeji: (12:28) in a manner similar to CRISP
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (12:29) No, Seun, I do not think so.
Avri Doria: (12:29) Seun, if we were to do that we would need to include information about the conditionality of that willingness.
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (12:30) That is not part of the minimum requirement, as confirmed by the ICG and by the CRISP Team. We are limiting ourselves to the minimum requirement.
Seun Ojedeji: (12:30) Okay @Avri and i guess that will take some time to do. So i agree
Mary Uduma: (12:30) +1@ Alan
Mary Uduma: (12:31) Thank you Jonathan, I support your proposal.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:35) question to the speakers: do we need all governance aspects to be fundamental bylaws?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:37) the CCWG proposal is more differentiated as to what needs to be fundamental and what not...
Avri Doria: (12:37) do a(iii) & b(i) include any accomodation to include the other OC as members?
Avri Doria: (12:38) where that to ever be desired?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:40) Thanks - Probaby then the matrix should reflect that the decision on which parts need to be fundamental needs to be discussed and decided by the CWG, right?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:41) after all, let us remember that standard bylaw changes may be blocked by the SMM according to the CCWG proposal
Mary Uduma: (12:43) Question : a (1) and (ii) sound contrary to what the CCWG is proposing for the ICANN that owns the PTI, please could you clarify further.
Jari Arkko: (12:44) Avri: just wanted to say that at this moment the IETF at least we are not planning to put people in new roles as members in the PTI etc. Not saying that would never happen, but we have our hands full, and we have the tools we need to manage the relationship. Appreciate the opportunity though.
Jonathan Robinson: (12:45) I will step away shortly and catch up via the recording / with Lise. Thanks to all for participation and engagement in the call.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:46) I would like to express a caveat of abusing the fundamental bylaws level for all kinds of details on PTI governance - the standard should be equivalent to what is considered necessary to be fundamental for ICANN itself - and only the nuclear aspects are considered to be "necessarily fundamental bylaws"
Avri Doria: (12:46) Jari, I understand. I was just thinking of the possible day in some possible future where the PTI will be running code and the IETF, and maybe the RIRs, sees an advantage in a different possible arrangement.
Avri Doria: (12:48) At that point he ICANN SM community will have a say in whether and how this occurs. Just wanted to understand what the way would be were that to ever happen.
Allan MacGillivray: (12:49) I have no microphone today (audio only) but I would like to ask a question and perhaps now might be an appropriate time to ask it.QUESTION: We clearly state in the CWG proposal (see page 21 under ‘Appeal Mechanism’ that the ‘direct customers of IANA need to have access to an Independent Review Panel’. My reading of the of the CCWG proposal (see page 39 for example) is that the proposed ‘independent review process’ will apply only in respect of ICANN board and staff decisions. If correct, how do we ensure that PTI decisions are also reviewable. Does this need to be built into PTI’s bylaws? QUESTION
Lise Fuhr: (12:51) @Allan I will hold your question until we come to the Appeal section
Allan MacGillivray: (12:52) OK
Jari Arkko: (12:55) avri - thanks. then we are in agreement.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:03) @Lise: rre-eading para 163 I do not think I was diverging from what we said there, but I do think in implementation we need to make it clear as to what might be grounds for veto and at what level that is applied
Avri Doria: (13:05) Martin, I thought one of the conditions for a veto was that the issue had been discussed during budget pre-season. since your condition includes the community having been invovled in the PTI budget discussion, i think that condition would have been met.
Paul Kane: (13:05) Hi all
Seun Ojedeji: (13:05) definately not through CSC
Andrew Sullivan: (13:06) It would be easier for me to understand what these reviews are supposed to be of. Isn't PTI supposed to not do things except as instructed?
Lise Fuhr: (13:06) Yes but it has been a requirement to the CCWG
Allan MacGillivray: (13:06) The CWG report cleal;ry indicates that individual problems and issues be reviewable. The CWG report says this: “Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions (emphasis added). For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition.”
Andrew Sullivan: (13:06) If they're not doing it, why an IFR? Why isn't this ICANN as the customer enforcing its contract?
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:07) @Avri: yes. That's where I start feeling concerned about an icann-level budget veto - and why we need to be clear on what it is grounds for veto
Seun Ojedeji: (13:07) I don't think CSC should review the work of PTI, if the action of PTI has to be reviewed then ICANN(CCWG proposed mechanisms)/IFRT may be in a better position to do that
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:08) I really am concerned about the IFO budget being held hostage
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:09) Agree Martin..
Matthew Shears: (13:09) + 1 Martin
Lise Fuhr: (13:10) Martin and Donna - there will be a procedure for this veto.
Alan Greenberg: (13:10) But the delegation of gTLD TLDs is not an IANA issue. It is an ICANN decision.
Alan Greenberg: (13:10) And as such if either governed by the contracts or a decision of ICANN which the IRP can be used for.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:11) @Lise: but this needs to be included in the bylaw, doesn't it?
Lise Fuhr: (13:12) Yes - we need to ask Sharon if this is included in the CCWG part
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:13) @Lise: but shouldn't we have a say here, too!
Alan Greenberg: (13:13) @Chuck, how is gTLD redelegation a PTI/IANA issue?
Allan MacGillivray: (13:13) All I can say is that my interpretation of the CWG report is the the review mechansim would apply to IANA/PTI decisions.
Andrew Sullivan: (13:14) I don't think this is something worth making a fundamental bylaw
Andrew Sullivan: (13:14) in fact I think it would be awkward because we don't know what sorts of changes might come
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:14) @Alan, I don't think Chuck is on adobe so won't have seen your question.
Alan Greenberg: (13:15) Thanks Donna
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:19) +1 Greg
Lise Fuhr: (13:19) @Martin yes just want to check
Seun Ojedeji: (13:22) Can PTI ask IANA to do what its not supposed to do?
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (13:22) If the ICANN Board makes an inappropriate decision, that can be challenged under the CCWG's IRP.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:23) @Andrew: +1
Alan Greenberg: (13:23) Drifting a little??
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (13:23) PTI is IANA.
Seun Ojedeji: (13:23) I meant PTI Board
Lise Fuhr: (13:24) @Alan respect the discussions
Alan Greenberg: (13:24) I ICANN makes a presumed bad decision, then ICANN needs to remedy. And on the short term, an injunction could fix the operational issue.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2: (13:26) @alan: I agree and also fail to see PTI overriding ICANN decisions
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (13:27) If it did, hopefully we have the accountability mechanisms to deal with it.
Andrew Sullivan: (13:27) If PTI overrides ICANN decisions, then surely ICANN should initiate IANA transfer away from PTI
Andrew Sullivan: (13:27) That's just Not Allowed
Andrew Sullivan: (13:28) if ICANN ever refused to follow an IETF directive about a protocol registry, you better believe there'd be a big deal made that afternoon
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (13:28) I think it would be the community throught the IFRT (or SCWEG) that would do that.
Andrew Sullivan: (13:28) (by way of comparison)
Alan Greenberg: (13:28) @Allan. If PTI refuses to take action on a request, then surely an IRP of months/years duration is not the way to address it.
Andrew Sullivan: (13:28) @Greg: right, I don't mean ICANN the corp but ICANN's processes for the community
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (13:29) Oh, that ICANN.... :-)
Alan Greenberg: (13:29) In any case, can't we make PTI subject to the IRP by appropriate words in the PTI Bylaws and the agreement with ICANN?
Allan MacGillivray: (13:29) @Alan - I take your point, but one of the values of such a mechanism is that it precludes such problems arising.
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (13:30) @Alan, I think that would have to be baked into how we set up the IRP.
Rudi Vansnick (NPOC): (13:30) for my personal information and understanding : will there be an overall chart with the authorities and the cascaded order of authority they have over the different elements/partners in the full structure?
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (13:30) Not just by PTI volunteering to be subject to the IRP.
Rudi Vansnick (NPOC): (13:30) to understand who overrules who in the full process
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (13:31) If we don't already have an escalation chart, we should have one.
Matthew Shears: (13:31) very good idea Rudi
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (13:32) Some of what we are discussing is implementation.....
Rudi Vansnick (NPOC): (13:32) so far i did not see one that helps me understand who controls who
Andrew Sullivan: (13:32) I need to drop, unfortunately.
Andrew Sullivan: (13:32) Bye all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (13:32) Correct Lise and there is contingency in the model to ensure oporations continue with prefious funding levels
Lise Fuhr: (13:33) Bye Andrew
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (13:34) sorry about the typos I am after all tyoing in the dark at 0430 here
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:34) @Cheryl: thanks, the provides some comfort. the concern is that a veto of the budget may have security and stability implications and day to day operations of TLD oeprators.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (13:34) Donna we were *very aware* of thos in the DT processes
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:35) cool
Seun Ojedeji: (13:35) Have to go now. Thanks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (13:36) Thanks for the additional CWG notes Josh yes we have been *very* careful there as well
Maarten Simon, SIDN: (13:45) sorry, but have to go. Bye.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:45) We'll drop now. Thanks
Grace Abuhamad: (13:45) Thank you Sharon and Josh
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (13:45) Bye Thanks
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (13:45) Bye all
Lise Fuhr: (13:47) Bye Seun
Lise Fuhr: (13:50) Bye Sharon and Josh
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:50) I think the current IANA plan to address urgent/security and stability issues was maintained.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:52) @Donna: but shouldn't we have SLEs to back this up?
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:52) @Martin, yes that would be sensible.
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:54) Sorry Paul, I must have missed the timing. When will we see the document?
Paul Kane: (13:55) I hope next week. Currently doing final (final) draft - very minor changes
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:55) Thanks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (13:57) All good then Thanks everyone ... Bye for now...
Rudi Vansnick (NPOC): (13:58) looking forward to the next meeting
Markus Kummer: (13:58) Bye and thanks. Excellent call!
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:59) thanks and bye!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (14:00) Bye Bye...
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:00) Adios!
Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): (14:00) Goodbye, all.
Matthew Shears: (14:00) thanks all!
Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2: (14:00) thanks very much. bye
Mary Uduma: (14:00) Thanky All for a productive meeting. and bye
Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (14:00) Bye all
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:00) bye, thanks
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:00) bye all
Allan MacGillivray: (14:00) Thanks everyone
Lise Fuhr: (14:00) Bye all
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (14:00) Thanks - all the best.
