Page History
...
Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Elise Lindeberg, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji, Staffan Jonson (14)
Participants: Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Sullivan, Brenden Kuerbis, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, Chuck Gomes, Gary Hunt, Greg DiBiase, Holly Gregory, Jorge Cancio, Josh Hofheimer, Maarten Simon, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Milton Mueller, Philip Corwin, Sharon Flanagan, Stephanie Duchesneau, Suzanne Woolf, Tennie Tam, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (23)
Staff: Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings, Theresa Swinehart, Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Alain Durand, Brenda Brewer, Samantha Eisner
Apologies: James Gannon, Robert Guerra
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Proposed Agenda
1. Opening Remarks
2. Open items on Draft Proposal
a. To be resolved by Design Teams
b. To be resolved by CWG
c. To be resolved during Public Comment
3. Public Comment
a. Structure
b. Associated Communications
c. Role of CWG Members
4. Timeline
5. AOB
6. Closing Remarks
Notes
1. Opening Remarks
- Last call before the launch of the Public Comment on the 2nd Draft Proposal.
- We've converged on one proposal for structure
- Today, we'd like to conclude on the last DTs and the outstandings items.
- Need dependencies for CCWG-Accountability to be clarified and noted
2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4
The following three items are "aide-memoire" to help think through open issues and how to address them.
a. To be resolved by Design Teams?
b. To be resolved by CWG?
c. To be resolved during Public Comment?
Section III starts on page 17
- Going through Sidley comments
- Change review period text to "every 5 years"
- Page 22, section on IANA Function Review -- help with language from Sidley
- Page 17, "ICANN to continue as IFO" -- help with language from Sidley
- For DT-A, placeholder text needed because the DT is not complete: capture that significant work has been done to date, but not all are agreed. --> suggest general statement instead
Action (Alan): provide the text for point 4 (after CCWG-Acct meeting)
Action (Staff): do a thorough copyedit
Action (Sidley): propose language for Section III and Annex L
3. Public Comment
a. Structure
- As discussed in Istanbul, staff prepared a template for the comments to be submitted.
- The template will be presented in Word and PDF formats (the PDF will be fillable)
- Use of the template will be strongly encouraged, but not absolutely obligatory (free form comments are also accepted)
- The reason for using a template is to get concrete feedback and also to faciliate analysis and incorporation of feedback
- The template and the Proposal will be published in all ICANN supported languages
b. Associated Communications
- There will be a Chairs' Foreword/Summary
- There will be an updated version of the Xplane Handout presented in Istanbul
- The idea behind the two documents is that they each provide background and narrative on the CWG work process: the foreword/summary does this in a text form, and the XPlane handout provides a visual form.
c. Role of CWG Members
Please make sure that CWG Members ensure that their communities are aware of the comments, the suggested format, and the timeframe for comments.
4. Timeline
Will publish timeline to the list to save for time.
5. AOB
6. Closing Remarks
Action Items
Action (Alan): provide the text for point 4 (after CCWG-Acct meeting)
Action (Staff): do a thorough copyedit
Action (Sidley): propose language for Section III and Annex L
Transcript
Transcript CWG IANA #42 21 April.doc
Transcript CWG IANA #42 21 April.pdf
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2tsbs6nsex/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-21apr15-en.mp3Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (4/21/2015 11:52) Welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #42 on 21 April.
Andrew Sullivan: (11:57) Hello
Lise Fuhr: (11:57) Hello
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (11:57) ¡Hola a todos!
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:00) Hello all!
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:00) Hello everyone
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:01) Hello
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:01) Hi all my power has cinveniently been reconnected (aboiut 50 mins ago) foinger crssed it willstay on for a while this time...
jaap akkerhuis (SSAC): (12:01) Evening, wull mute
Lise Fuhr: (12:01) Yes that is quite a storm in Australia
Alan Greenberg: (12:01) How are your soggy carpets Cheryl?
Holly Gregory: (12:01) hi everyone.
Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (12:02) Mute your mics, please
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:02) Hi all
Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (12:02) The failure to mute should result in a mandatory a capella performance
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:04) @Graeme, it already has.
jorge cancio GAC: (12:04) hi all
Chris Disspain: (12:04) Greetings
Mary Uduma: (12:08) Hello Everyone
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:09) Hi Mary
Marika Konings: (12:12) Section III starts on page 17
Marika Konings: (12:13) And also to note, some of the comments overlapped - so those that seemed to be addressed by other comments have not been included.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:13) thanks @Marika
Staffan Jonson: (12:14) Hi all
Marika Konings: (12:14) Note that Avri has suggested some changes to Annex L that were not captured yet in the version reviewed by Sidley.
Seun Ojedeji: (12:14) Hello everyone
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (12:15) The abbrevation PRF is never defined in the document. The first time is mentioned is in page 19 in one of the middle bullets.
Marika Konings: (12:15) Please note that I missed Alan's comments regarding DT F - I'll get these incorporated as soon as possible.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:16) @Eduardo - I think that team should now be IANA Review Function
Marika Konings: (12:16) Eduardo, please note that it has already been updated (see page 19)
Brenden Kuerbis: (12:16) Copy edit
Avri Doria: (12:16) IFR - IANA function review
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (12:16) @MArika: OK I was looking at version 3.3
Marika Konings: (12:16) Thanks :-)
Avri Doria: (12:16) & IFRT re the latest nams we have been given
Marika Konings: (12:17) The latest version is up on the screen (but has not been circulated to the list yet)
Staffan Jonson: (12:17) Jonathan is gliding in and out of mute for me
Marika Konings: (12:17) Note we will also be including a glossary
Milton Mueller: (12:17) mute-gliding: a new sport
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:17) Use the + button Jonathan
Holly Gregory: (12:17) Having difficulty hearing Jonathan
Lise Fuhr: (12:17) No problem
Milton Mueller: (12:17) no problem
Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (12:17) no you are fine here
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:17) to make the document larger in the window
Staffan Jonson: (12:17) OK
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:17) all OK via AC
Mary Uduma: (12:17) ok
Marika Konings: (12:18) Section III starts on page 17
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:18) Sad to see "decomposed" go....
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:19) I withdraw my comment on page 18
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:20) Glad to see a good proofread/copy edit seems to have been done.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:21) If we don't have clarity on what it means, I would delete
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:24) I am okay with not flagging it Jonathan.
Seun Ojedeji: (12:26) Automatic renewal on page 20 i presume will be after the outcome of the 5 years review?
Milton Mueller: (12:26) +1 .
Brenden Kuerbis: (12:26) sagree ay every 5 yrs
Milton Mueller: (12:26) every 5 years.
Lise Fuhr: (12:26) +1
Holly Gregory: (12:26) +1
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:26) ok
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:26) @Seun- correct
Seun Ojedeji: (12:26) Thanks
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:26) @Marika-this may need a global search on 5 years to conform
Grace Abuhamad: (12:26) Yes @Sharon -- got it
Milton Mueller: (12:29) tell them to join
Alan Greenberg: (12:29) Was v3.4 document either distributed or uploaded?
Grace Abuhamad: (12:30) Chris and Alan -- I lowered your hands by accident I think! Please re-raise them!
Marika Konings: (12:30) Yes, sorry, I missed the GNSO
Marika Konings: (12:30) from Avri's edits
Staffan Jonson: (12:30) Yes, assume that ccNSO AND gNSO has be into it
Marika Konings: (12:30) Will do :-)
Alan Greenberg: (12:31) If my hand was up it was a mistake.
Seun Ojedeji: (12:31) Can we have the 3.4 shared?
Marika Konings: (12:31) I've deleted 'operational'
Paul Kane: (12:31) Historically, IANA staff were placed under pressure by ICANN to deliver different levels of serivce to ccNSO members and non-ccNSO members, contracted and non-contracted parties. A significant majority of ccTLDs do not have nor want contracts with IANA
Marika Konings: (12:31) @Seun - we can share after the meeting so that the edits / comments discussed are incorporated.
Staffan Jonson: (12:32) Still Pauls issueremains
Alan Greenberg: (12:32) @Marika, v3.4 would be appreciated - easier to follow in seprate document than in Adobe pod.
Lise Fuhr: (12:33) @Staffan yes it does
Seun Ojedeji: (12:33) @Marika i guess Alan raised the reason why its preferred to be shared now
Avri Doria: (12:33) bad writing
Donna Austin, RySG: (12:34) I can respond if needed.
Milton Mueller: (12:34) True, Paul's issue has not been addressed. But we have to rely on defined institutions to trigger decisions and processes, and maybe these entities who are not part of ccNSO should just join
Marika Konings: (12:34) If you click on the menu at the top of the pod, you have a 'save as' option
Staffan Jonson: (12:35) Lise: you mean Puals issue?
Marika Konings: (12:35) and that should allow you to download the version that is up on the screen
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:35) Consider whether supermajority is the right threshold rather than majority of ccNSO/GNSO
Lise Fuhr: (12:35) @Staffan yes Paul's issue
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:35) +1 to Donna
Avri Doria: (12:35) F has the longer process. i t was not meant to go back to the cCSC, but the process was initiated by the CSc. bad writing, as i said
Chris Disspain: (12:35) ccNSO doesn't generally do anything other than by 66%
Maarten Simon: (12:36) Maybe we could resolve Paul's issue by making sure within the ccNSO that decisions like this have to be taken including the voice of the non members
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:36) @Chris - if that's their normal operating procedure, then 2/3 may be fine
Milton Mueller: (12:36) good question, Jonathan!
Avri Doria: (12:37) i put it that way becasue it is what i thought C wanted.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:37) @Jonathan: I agree. The GNSO & ccNSO do not appear to have any process in place for such escalation, do they?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:37) and what happens when the ccTLD is not a ccNSO member? Why ccNSO?
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:37) I think because it is a much bigger decision, Jonathan: it really foes need to have a community input
Donna Austin, RySG: (12:37) Sorry my line has dropped
Chris Disspain: (12:37) Martin + 1
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:38) And I also think we should expect the ccNSO & GNSO would consult
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:38) Including non-ccNSO members.
Chris Disspain: (12:38) I have an answer to Paul's question
Paul Kane: (12:39) Many ccTLDs do NOT participate in the ccNSO
Paul Kane: (12:39) I don't think it is necessary step
Seun Ojedeji: (12:39) Sorry whats the review function? PRF or IRF?
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:39) @Olivier: ccNSO because it exists and has mailing lists to ask for wider input
Donna Austin, RySG: (12:39) I'm back, but I think the issue has passed.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:40) So non-ccNSO members can say if they want a review to CSC members and in response to a general ccTLD mailing list
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:40) @Seun - IANA review function is new term for PRF (Periodic Review Function)
Staffan Jonson: (12:40) In earlier talks, we also talked (Istanbul) about having ccNSO accepting/welcoming non-members into this specific process
Seun Ojedeji: (12:40) okay @Sharon thanks for the clarification
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:41) lol @chris the SO you have when your nt having an SO ;-)
Milton Mueller: (12:41) Anyway, GNSO and ccNSO review would be a very rare occurrence, if it happened at all
Seun Ojedeji: (12:41) In that case i don't see why CSC would jump its manager(PTI) and escalate to IRF
Paul Kane: (12:42) And a super majority is FAR too high
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:42) @ Seun: Why do you think the PTI manages the CSC?
Milton Mueller: (12:42) good point, Lise
Paul Kane: (12:42) Lise +1
Allan MacGillivray: (12:42) A supermajority of ccNSO members would be an extremely high bar to overcome as while ccNSO membership is growing, actual ccNSO particpation is not.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:42) fair point Lise needs to be nted at some point here in a footnote or in the annex
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:42) PTI does not manage CSC....
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:42) nted = noted
Chris Disspain: (12:43) Can we not let the SOs and ACs comment on this stuff rasther than refine it here?
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:43) voting threshold could be deferred at this time. if no consensus
Brenden Kuerbis: (12:43) Thank you
Seun Ojedeji: (12:43) @Chuck maybe i chose the wrong word, what i meant is why will CSC not escalate to PTI that manages IANA
Chris Disspain: (12:44) in other parts of our discussions including Accountability we have allowed fr each So and AC to set its owbb threshold
Chris Disspain: (12:44) own
Marika Konings: (12:45) @Brendan - there were several objections to your proposed change and as such I did not incorporate it
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:45) @ Seun: The escalation to the PTI would have already happened and failed at that point.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:46) If agreement - suggested language: "a special review may also be initiated by the ccNSO and GNSO upon a recommendation by the CSC"
Seun Ojedeji: (12:46) @Chuck okay if that has happened, and PTI refuses to address CSC concern then CSC can escalate to IRF
Matthew Shears: (12:46) @ Chuck - is that escalation path clearly articulated somewhere?
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:46) @Chuck - agree. The CSC and on to the periodic review are more ICANN level accountability mechanisms
Avri Doria: (12:46) then we have no special IFR?
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:47) I'm not happy with Staffan's proposal
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:47) Edit, but not remove
Staffan Jonson: (12:47) Mmm, but there are other problems with the tex as well
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:47) Here is the wording in the Problem Mgmt Process (Annex J): "3. If CSC determines that the remedial action has been exhausted and has not led to necessary improvements, the CSC is authorized to escalate to the ccNSO and/or the GNSO , which might then decide to take further action using agreed consultation and escalation processes"
Donna Austin, RySG: (12:47) I understand Paul's point, but I'd also add that all gTLD registries are not part of the RySG and potentially the GNSO. We were relying on existing structures within ICANN absent any other viable options.
Lise Fuhr: (12:48) @Sharon good compromise text plus adding taking into account non ccNSO members as a footnote
Chris Disspain: (12:48) anarchy rules, assuming we can be bothered
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:48) so a requirement to consult registry non-members of the ccNSO and GNSO?
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:49) And supermajority of the councils based on the input received?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:49) @ Paul: Is there time for cc's to resolve this issue before publication tomorrow?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:49) @chris tht is far to whitty for you at this time of our day (well morning I guess) 0350
Chris Disspain: (12:49) sounds right Martin
Paul Kane: (12:49) Wow - tomorrow
Allan MacGillivray: (12:49) @Martin +1
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:50) Supermajority can mean anything from 2/3 on up. A significant review should note be initiated by a bare majority.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:50) @ Paul: Should this be dealt with during the public comment period?
Paul Kane: (12:50) Happyu with that
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:50) actually @Chuck on other discussed language is good
Lise Fuhr: (12:50) +1 Jonathan and Avri
Chris Disspain: (12:50) Jonathan, I think you havd to include non-gnso member registries also on that basis
Staffan Jonson: (12:50) Donna, yes, and then again several g:s are at least bound and protected by at least contract. C:s sometimes have the oppsite problem of beeing protected from e.g. capture
Staffan Jonson: (12:51) of NOT beeing protected
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:51) Could replace ccNSO with a ccTLD body consisting of ccNSO and non-ccNSO members.
Milton Mueller: (12:51) creating another new entity for a once in a blue moon possibility?
Chris Disspain: (12:51) there is no such body Greg and there won't be an appetite to create one
Staffan Jonson: (12:51) Yes Greg, that is contstructive
Paul Kane: (12:51) I preferred Jonathan's language
Maarten Simon: (12:51) maybe we should go for a two stage vote. 1 simple majority of all casted votes 2. first vote rejected if within 30 days more than half of all voting parties voice disagreement
Brenden Kuerbis: (12:51) @Marika I saw two, but still feel there is inconsistency between the Section III.A bullet which says "ICANN...continues as the IANA functions operator" and later descirption that "gives PTI the rights and obligations as the IANA Functions Operator."
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:52) It would not be a true body, it would come together only for this purpose -- consider it a ccNSO open house.
Marika Konings: (12:52) change it to 'following escalation by' ?
Chris Disspain: (12:52) Greg, that alreadu can be done and often is - it was the case with IDNs for example
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:52) @Milton and @Chris+1
Milton Mueller: (12:52) Greg: I think consultation is enough
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:52) @Milton: yes
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:53) @ Chuck - once CSC decides to escalate, isn't the review the mechanism to address. What else would CSC expect ccNSO and GNSO to do?
Avri Doria: (12:53) Brenden's placeholder?
Donna Austin, RySG: (12:54) the CSC would provide the facts to the ccNSO and GNSO regarding failed remediation, and the ccNSO/GNSO would decide if the issue should result in RFP. Bear in mind that when we decided to escalate to the ccNSO/GNSO it was a default DT-C used because there was uncertainty whether there would be an MRT or some other body for the CSC to escalate issues to.
Paul Kane: (12:54) Jonathan's language of treating all on an equal basis is satisfactory as holding text - but it needs more work later
Alan Greenberg: (12:54) Which para/page are we now on.
Seun Ojedeji: (12:54) @Chuck i think the remedial action you refer (Annex J)may need to be better defined and i don't think ccNSO/GNSO shold be the end point for names....their recommendation should go to IRF which is more MS vested. By the way i expect a lot would have gone wrong before it gets to this level
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:55) @ Sharon: ccNSO/GNSO would review and decide whether to escalate further, i.e. to the IANA Review Team or some broader community process to initiate a 'nuclear' option.
Matthew Shears: (12:55) need a statement up front that post transition ICANN is the contrcator and PTI the operator
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:56) The last sentence in Annex J: "The IANA Review Function will include provision to consider whether there are any systemic issues which are impacting IANA services, which might then decide to take further action using agreed consultation and escalation processes."
Chris Disspain: (12:56) I disagree with Milton's wording
Milton Mueller: (12:56) oh you would
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:56) as do I
Milton Mueller: (12:56) :=)
Chris Disspain: (12:56) Sigh...
Milton Mueller: (12:57) then describe ICANN as the contractor
Brenden Kuerbis: (12:57) Say ICANN is granting the rights and obligations
Chris Disspain: (12:57) I have no problem with having a clear description in simple terms
Chris Disspain: (12:57) I have no problem with having a clear description in simple terms but we also cannot pre-empt the public comment on the CCWG work
Chris Disspain: (12:58) sorry . I don't mean CCWG
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:58) Brendans proposed language works does it not?
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:58) I can suggest language
Brenden Kuerbis: (12:58) Yes Sharon please
Matthew Shears: (12:59) + 1 "to contunue as" is problematical - need greater slecificity
Matthew Shears: (12:59) specificity
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:59) fine with getting Sidley to propose deffinative language
Milton Mueller: (12:59) me too
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:59) @Greg - Sidley can address these 2 bullets and clarify
Brenden Kuerbis: (13:00) Thanks all, I have to run to another meeting. Good luck wordsmithing, confident we'll come up with an accurate description.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:00) bye Brendan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:00) and yes I am waitnng for you in that meeeting
Chris Disspain: (13:00) Let's let Sidley wordsmith this as they havbe offered to do
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:03) What, no Telex?
Milton Mueller: (13:03) dot dot dot, dash dash dash
Alan Greenberg: (13:03) Carrier pigeon
Alan Greenberg: (13:04) http://www.pigeongram.com/
Chris Disspain: (13:05) there are many small ccTLDs who's governments mandate that they use fax etc...we need to ensure that they are not treated as second class citizens of IANA
Paul Kane: (13:05) I will send out a draft asap - today
Chris Disspain: (13:05) *whose*
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:06) I still run across fax requirements here in the good ole USA.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:06) @Chuck +1
Chris Disspain: (13:06) Ditto
Paul Kane: (13:06) I am happy either way
Milton Mueller: (13:06) @Greg: yeah, most of them are products of the Patriot ACt
Chris Disspain: (13:07) sounds about riht jonathan
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:07) I suggest putting the SLEs as drafted and note the areas still being worked.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:08) Yup agree @Chuck
Milton Mueller: (13:08) @Disspain: The US financial system seems to have something in common with small ccTLDs
Alan Greenberg: (13:11) What is plan if we don't finish this review in the next 49 minutes? There is a CCWG meeting scheduled immediately after.
Chris Disspain: (13:12) we could spend the next 49 minutes discussing what we'll do if we run out of time :-)
Alan Greenberg: (13:12) Good plan Chris!
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:13) That's a bit recursive....
Seun Ojedeji: (13:13) I thought its IANA review function? can we try to be consistent with wordings/acronyms (ref page 24)
Chris Disspain: (13:13) CSC, Jonathan
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:13) I do think we are trying, Seun. What makes you think we are not?
Grace Abuhamad: (13:13) Yes @Seun, we will do a copyedit. Been focusing on content and incorporating comments
Seun Ojedeji: (13:14) okay noted @Grace
Staffan Jonson: (13:14) Yes
Chris Disspain: (13:14) + 1 Jonathan
Matthew Shears: (13:14) makes sense
Chris Disspain: (13:14) Staff + CSC is correct
Staffan Jonson: (13:15) well yes business continuity is what I thought we outlined, and therefore CSC + staff
Maarten Simon: (13:16) fine. You just saved me some time
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:17) SIdley comment 21 was derivative of Martin's so no need to address
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:19) OK: it was the wider funding that left me concerned
Matthew Shears: (13:19) were there to be another operator ICANN would fund/pay for as contractor, correct?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:19) We may not be sufficient to just say R&D funding. There could be the need for implementation funding of new standards or technologies.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:19) But what happens if it is not funded?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:20) @ Martin: It doesn't happen or reserve funds are used.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:20) I think Sidley comment 22 can be addressed through revised language: "the functions provided by IANA Functions Operator and NTIA..."
Grace Abuhamad: (13:20) Please paste your text @alan
Chris Disspain: (13:21) I agree with Alan
Alan Greenberg: (13:22) Control of Root Zone Control ManagementCurrently updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties, the IANA Functions Operator, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. The IANA Functions Operator receives change requests from various sources, validates them, and sends them to the Root Zone Maintainer who, once they are authorized by the NTIA, updates the Root Zone File, DNSSEC signs it, and distributes it to the Root operators.Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. It is clear that the CWG is not suggesting any change to this operational relationship at the moment, but is considering whether this division of responsibility must be maintained in the long term, or could be altered in the future, either to combine the functions, or two reallocated the responsibilities. Proponents of the current division believe that having two parties involved reduces the chance of errors or untoward action. Others believe that we should look at the ov
Andrew Sullivan: (13:23) The point I was trying to ake in that comment, however, was that it'd be fine to say in the draft, "This separation shouldn't change now."
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:23) This is a future issue. Not a transition issue per se.
Andrew Sullivan: (13:24) @Greg: right
Alan Greenberg: (13:24) @Greg. Andrew. I agree.
Andrew Sullivan: (13:24) For the purposes of the transition, the separation should continue
Andrew Sullivan: (13:24) I think that's good enough
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:24) We should be concentrating on Zero Day issues.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:24) Agree with ANdrew.
Suzanne Woolf: (13:25) @Andrew, the current draft does say that-- IIRC the discussion in DT-F was entirely about what, if anything, to say about the post-transition environment-- there was no controversy about keeping it for now
Suzanne Woolf: (13:25) (at least I think the current draft says so, I may have lost track)
Avri Doria: (13:25) isn't is still sort of out of scope at this point?
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:26) Let's put in all the things we're not proposing right now.... :-)
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:26) We are now officially in the weeds.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:27) Off with its head.
Chris Disspain: (13:28) we love weeds
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:28) A statement of no change at the time of transition.is fine. May as well be clear about the status quo.
Chris Disspain: (13:28) some of us may well love the singular also
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:29) 420 was yesterday (or two days ago for you).
Seun Ojedeji: (13:29) I think item 4 attempts to handle the role of the maintainer post transition which i don't think is within our scope
Chris Disspain: (13:30) but I thought there wasn't consensus on that
Seun Ojedeji: (13:30) I understand there is a seperate process that will be initiated for that (ref: NTIA faq)
Chris Disspain: (13:30) which is why Alan suggested withdrawing
Avri Doria: (13:30) I agree with Seun on this one.
Chris Disspain: (13:31) if there's consensus then fine
Milton Mueller: (13:31) Chris: we wree still debating it. No one was advocating integration
Milton Mueller: (13:31) but some didn't agree with it as a "principle"
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:31) @ Jonathan: Should we stop going page by page and instead let people identify what they think are the big issues in the draft?
Chris Disspain: (13:31) happy with Alan's suggestion
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:31) that language works for me @Alan
Lise Fuhr: (13:32) Annex L
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:32) I think we need to focus some on F.
Marika Konings: (13:34) It is actually page 47
Avri Doria: (13:34) F starts on 47
jaap akkerhuis (SSAC): (13:34) I had comments on page 36 (now 37 I believe)
Marika Konings: (13:35) @Jaap - your suggested language has been incorporated
jaap akkerhuis (SSAC): (13:36) I noticed, thanks. So I guess it is accepted by the group
Seun Ojedeji: (13:36) background noise?
Seun Ojedeji: (13:36) getting echo
Grace Abuhamad: (13:37) Jonathan - -I muted your mic due to echo
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:38) @Marika: in "Composition of Review Team" there needs to be a closing bracket after "ALAC"
Grace Abuhamad: (13:39) Thanks @OCL
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:39) Thanks Avri.
Marika Konings: (13:40) @Olivier - fixed
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:40) Rather than referring generally to the community right to initiate action, I think we should specify who can do this -- ccNSO/GNSO. Anyone else?
Avri Doria: (13:41) yes, i was not comfortable until that method of triggereing had been agreed to.
Lise Fuhr: (13:41) @Sharon we still need to include non ccNSO ccTLDs
Seun Ojedeji: (13:41) may i understand why RySG has 2 reps on review team?
Seun Ojedeji: (13:41) or was that a typo error?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:41) @ Seun: Same reason ccNSO has two.
Elise Lindeberg GAC 2: (13:41) yes - that's a question for public comment
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:42) @Avri and Jonathan - Ok. I understand it's a question for public comment
Marika Konings: (13:43) Page 70
Seun Ojedeji: (13:43) @Chuck is there anything like non-RySG for gTLD?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:43) @Chuck: same reason as ccNSO - do you mean 1 seat for RySG and one for gTLD operators that are not in RySG?
Marika Konings: (13:44) Note that some updates have been made by DT L to Annex L compared to the version that was circulated yesterday.
Milton Mueller: (13:44) makes a lotof sense
Marika Konings: (13:44) The updated version is up on the screen.
Milton Mueller: (13:44) I had assumed that separation was always a step after a review
Marika Konings: (13:45) by DT N (not DT L)
Chris Disspain: (13:45) @ Sharon...yes in my view
Milton Mueller: (13:45) or a regular review?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:46) @ Olivier: Giving one seat to RySG members and one to non-members would mean giving a seat to as few as one or two registries. That would not make sense.
Chris Disspain: (13:47) @ Sharon...yes
Chris Disspain: (13:47) the SOs and ACs MUSt have final say
Chris Disspain: (13:48) at least in my view
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:48) @Chuck: so why 2 RySGs? I can see the need in ccNSO but is this just to match numbers?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:48) +1 Chris
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:49) @ Olivier: gTLD registries represent over 50% of all domain name registrants. They should have at least as much representation as ccTLDs.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:49) @Chuck: understood. Thanks!
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:50) What about direct customers supporting any decision to separate? I understand SO/AC must have final say, but shouldn't the direct customers have some weighted say?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:50) Indeed Chris I agree
Milton Mueller: (13:50) I don't agree, the process is too long and extended
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:50) @ Donna: It seems to me that that would be consistent with what NTIA has said.
Lise Fuhr: (13:51) @Chris that still leaves out the non ccNSO ccTLDs
Milton Mueller: (13:51) SOs and ACs only make recommendations to the board
Elise Lindeberg GAC 2: (13:51) exactly Chris !!
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:51) @Olivier and Chuck: I think as a general principle there shoudl be 2 gTLD and 2 ccNSO reps: where they come from may be inconsequential.
Donna Austin, RySG: (13:51) sorry 2 ccTLD reps
Staffan Jonson: (13:53) Sharon Only in the case of separation, not as a general rule
Elise Lindeberg GAC 2: (13:55) this is fundamental discussions - we need to discuss this further in the CWG during publick commet
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:56) If we consider separation to be the last resort, it seems to me that it would be good to consider other options before considering separation, i.e., RFP, removal of Board members, etc.
Lise Fuhr: (13:57) Sorry I have to leave - thank you for good comments
Chris Disspain: (13:58) I need to drop off the call now..
Chris Disspain: (13:58) thanks all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:59) need to switch to another call now Bye
Alan Greenberg: (14:00) Ditto here.
Avri Doria: (14:00) and i did not think we could assume a specific mechansim. happy to have recommended langauge, but not sure i understand why the intermediate step.
Paul Kane: (14:00) But MANY operators endorse ICANN/IANA without being members of AC/SO - how do you plan to include them
Avri Doria: (14:00) i do thnk we need public comment. i think it is a step too far.
Matthew Shears: (14:01) I agree we have to exercise caution on interim steps - they have to be appropriate to the concern at hand
Avri Doria: (14:03) we can put out a form, but we have to accept free form comment.
Matthew Shears: (14:03) I would suggest strcutureed with optional comment boxes
Andrew Sullivan: (14:03) I understand the reasons for this form, but I will observe that this is pretty novel and the public comment is already pretty short
Seun Ojedeji: (14:03) Why do we need to make name compulsory?
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:03) I like the form . It helps in categorizaing the comments
Andrew Sullivan: (14:03) it looks a little like inventing new procedures _ad hoc_
Avri Doria: (14:03) and those comment boxes restrict length of comment.
Marika Konings: (14:04) @Seun - as the commenters are expected to identify themselves.
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:04) @Avri: I beleive this is an online form so you will be able to open-up the boxes
Avri Doria: (14:04) but they may decide we need feedback on stuff we dont realize we need comment on.
Andrew Sullivan: (14:05) I agree with Avri's point: how do we know what parts we need feedback on? Maybe people will think this proposal is just totally wong
Avri Doria: (14:05) Eduardo, we have used these in the past and writing a long piece in the comment box can be challenging.
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (14:05) I am having many drop outs of the audio....
Elise Lindeberg GAC 2: (14:05) Ok with formated - but need room for free form also
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (14:05) I agree with Chuck's point.
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:05) We should have another box just for any other general comments
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:05) Makes sense Marika.
Grace Abuhamad: (14:05) Yes @Eduardo, that will be at the end. This is just an intial draft
Seun Ojedeji: (14:05) @Marika, i understand that but again we may have those who don't want to add a name. Perhaps because they prefer not to be identified?
Avri Doria: (14:05) What Marika says works for me.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (14:05) This is pretty free form actually. Just trying to split the parts up.
Andrew Sullivan: (14:06) Also, is there a back end database behind all this? How well has it been tested? One hardly wants the sort of technical problems that plagued the new gTLD process
Suzanne Woolf: (14:06) IMHO a form can be provided for guidance on the areas the CWG especially wants to hear about, but it seems really important to not restrict freeform comment as well
Grace Abuhamad: (14:06) Seun, people needs to send an email to submit the comments, so they will have an idenifyiing email no?
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:06) @Seun: use anonymous
Matthew Shears: (14:06) structure by sections and allow a general commnt box at the end
Marika Konings: (14:06) @Seun - I am not sure why the CWG would want to consider comments that are anonymous?
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (14:07) On the Annex L open point: possible language below:
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:07) @Grace: I though this is going to be an on-line form
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (14:07) Triggers for the Separation MechanismAn outcome of an IANA Review Function could include a recommendation to initiate a separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration, with ultimate input by the multistakeholder community through the CCWG Accountability mechanisms under consideration. Footnote: A point for public comment is whether the IANA Review Function recommendation for separation should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board, or whether it should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Review Function team.
Avri Doria: (14:07) ewell if the thought is good, does it matter where it comes from?
Seun Ojedeji: (14:07) @Grace the content of the comment would matter right? and not the identity?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:07) I don't think Anonymous comments should be accepted.
Avri Doria: (14:07) i prefer atributed comments, but we should not ignore the anonymous comment just becasue it is anonymous.
Seun Ojedeji: (14:08) sorry @Marika
Andrew Sullivan: (14:08) The form doesn't seem to have room for comments on the annexes. Given that most of the meat is in the annexes, how will people comment on that?
Marika Konings: (14:08) WG members cannot participate anonymously, so why should commenters not be required to identify themselves?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:08) The identity is the only way to screen out frivolous comments.
Marika Konings: (14:08) @Andrew - we will add those, this is just an initial draft to show what it could look like.
Avri Doria: (14:09) i do not think we should invite anonymous, but if we get a reasonable comment, we shoudl deal with it.
Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (14:09) Comments are typically submitted by email, which generally identifies the sender.
Seun Ojedeji: (14:09) I fear this form template could run to pages? hope it will not get people board. Can there be another option to upload response with just the minimal data entered on the form (like names, affliation etc)
Avri Doria: (14:09) Greg, but it is easy to send an 'anonymized' email
Seun Ojedeji: (14:09) @Greg i guess the email thing is not what we are using this time
Marika Konings: (14:10) @Seun - if someone doesn't have input on a section, they can just leave it blank.
Avri Doria: (14:10) and is a name we dont know that is made up, better than an anymous comment?
Marika Konings: (14:10) @Seun - yes, all comments need to be submitted by email - attaching the template
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:10) Thanks all.
Matthew Shears: (14:10) thanks all
Maarten Simon: (14:10) thanks, bye
Staffan Jonson: (14:11) Thank You all. Go staff go!
Grace Abuhamad: (14:11) Updated draft will be circulated after this call
Avri Doria: (14:11) bye off to the next.
Andrew Sullivan: (14:11) thanks
Seun Ojedeji: (14:11) @Marika...oh...okay thats fine then. I thought it was a form to be filled online
Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (14:11) bye
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (14:11) Thanks Jonathan! Bye all!
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:11) Adios