Page History
Attendees:
Members:
Participants:
Staff:
Wanawit Ahkuputra; Jaap Akkerhuis; Donna Austin; Fatima Cambronero; Graeme Bunton; Olivier Crepin-Leblond; Eduardo Diaz; Lise Fuhr; Robert Guerra; Erick Iriarte; Staffan Jonson; Paul Kane; Elise Lindeberg; Vika Mpisane; Seun Ojedeji; Jonathan Robinson; Greg Shatan
Participants: Guru Acharya; Carolina Aguerre; Wale Bekare; Martin Boyle; Gary Campbell; Steve Crocker; Keith Davidson; Stephanie Duchesneau; Amr Elsadr; Lars-Erik Forsberg; Alan Greenberg; Feng Guo; Tracy Hackshaw; Geetha Hariharan; Gary Hunt; Malcolm Hutty; Boyoung Kim; Stacey King; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Allan MacGillivray; Camino Manjon-Sierra; Desiree Miloshevic; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Minjung Park; Kurt Pritz; Suzanne Radell; Jorg Schweiger; Claudia Selli; Matthew Shears; Maarten Simon; Mary Uduma; Peter Van Roste; Suzanne Woolf; Jiankang Yao.
Staff: Grace Abuhamad; Bart Boswinkel; Berry Cobb; Marika Konings; Jim Trengrove; Bernard Turcotte; Theresa Swinehart
Apologies: Chuck Gomes; Apologies: TBD
**Please let Grace know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
...
Notes & Action Items
Update /Revisit RFP 1, RFP 2A, 2B and Principles
Review RFP 1
- Only additional questions and comments
- Documents have been circulated today
- Clean and redline version.
- All pending issues have been resolved
- Any additional points
- RFP 1 closed, no addtional comments
- To be used in initial draft to be circulated
- Draft for review by CWG
Issue raised:
If comments are made, for which insufficient support of comment, are recorded in redline, to move forward clean is send to group to be included in draft document. If some comments are still not been addressed appropriately , to be raised in context of initial draft proposal again..
RFP 2A
Any additonal comments, questions
- RFP 2A closed
- RFP 1 closed, no addtional comments
- To be used in initial draft to be circulated
- Draft for review by CWG
RFP 2B
- Update (redline and clean) just send out. Break to allow people to read through.
- Only changes have beent talked through with commenters, again tracktable in redline.
- If no addtional comments clean version will be used in intial draft document.
Comments and questions
- Section 2.2
- Correction of types
- typo . az ( ICC rules)
- change reference to ICC to footnote
- Accepted
Note C.2.9.2 d no consensus
For the record not including view weakens the document.
Principles
- Discussion on changes, no agreement with commentator
- Review of 3 outstanding items (to be presented)
- Following discussion yesterday, dialogue with commentors.
- 3 Outstanding items no comprise with commentators i.e divergnece of views
- Purpose is to seek out whether comprise is feasible, with or witout amanedments
Security and Stability section
- Proposal was submitted by participants with GAC background in the room.
- Question do sqaure bracket remain in place
- The way as suggested acceptable to participants with GAC background.
- Question: section b, could this be split after purpose. and add new sentence.
- Refraame of section security furhter refined. Support for open Internet separate paragraph.
- Is feasible to change wording in positive way.
- Comment: add word "interoperable" to sentence open Internet. -> open and interoperable Internet
- Move sentence on "stress testing" to introduction.
- However this would change concept -> will not be included.
- Include "fit for purpose" ,
- What does stress testing mean in context of principles? Stress test concept refers to mechanisms developed by the CWG. Take a few scenario's and how will developed mechanisms hold on these scenario's.
- Remove brackets round stress testing
section e.
Original proposal presented on left
Difference is on Policy based
Original section:
- IANA shaoul d base its decision on policy agreed
- Alternative proposal sets standards to policy making bodies ( procedural)
- Intent of alternative: is to clarify responsibilities of IANA operator and interfaces. Statement about inputs the IANA conrtractor receives from policy making bodies
Proposed language does not match original changes.
Proposal does not make clear what are sources
Although same words are used, different result and intensions.
Proposed language is withdrawn
- Require bottom-up modalities: not clear
- Cam in on the lsst. is a reference to bottom-up processes.
- Proposal s to remove it:
- C1 comment and proposed change. Section Transparency. about inclusion "unless prevented or precluded by business confidentialy
- Comment: include specific reference to national law in case of delegation and redelegation.
- should reference e to GAC principles be included?
- Wording to be included on national law, has been forwarded.
- Staff action: provide next redline.
Item 3
- Part of proposal that has been withdrawn
Note Principle g is used twice
Includes suggestion which will be taken off-line with proposer
Transcript
The transcript will be posted here upon receipt
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p34rumo74e0/
The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/2882k5bmmy8p9e2728p0.mp3
Documents Presented
...
IANA CWG RFP Section 1 - Nov19 edits clean.docx
IANA CWG RFP Section 1 - Nov19 edits redline.docx
CWG-RFP2A-19NOV.docxCWG-RFP2A-19NOV-edits-redline.docx
CWG-RFP2B Proposal 19Nov edits.docx
CWG-RFP2B Proposal 19Nov edits redline.docx
Draft of Principles - compare - 20 November.docx
Chat Transcript
Grace Abuhamad:***Break until 14:45 UTC (15:45 local)
Grace Abuhamad:We are back !
ICANN RP:Redialing audio for Adobe Connect.
Sivasubramanian M:Grace what is the link to editable version of the document on screen?
Grace Abuhamad:There is no editable document. The Word version that you see on screen is here: https://community.icann.org/x/UQ3xAg
Grace Abuhamad:Only the RFP3 group had editable Google Docs for their work
Grace Abuhamad:Link to Principles doc up on screen : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49352017/Draft%20of%20Principles%20-%20compare%20-%2020%20November.docx?api=v2
Grace Abuhamad:Please note that this is for discussion only. The full redline will be shared once these 3 issues have been resolved.
Amr Elsadr:If we can equate that requirement with stress testing, then cool.
Wale Bakare:stress testing may be testing of capacity and efficiency of the proposal
Graeme Bunton:should we be using the word resilient?
Wale Bakare:@Graeme, i may be in the same boat with you
Sivasubramanian M:With ccTLDs, we could at least ask for the change requests post marked by ICANN, for a start
Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye for now.
Sivasubramanian M:Now it looks a bit cleaner
...