Page History

Versions Compared

Old Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Brenda Brewer

Saved on Dec 23, 2014

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Brenda Brewer

Saved on Dec 27, 2014

Key

This line was added.
This line was removed.
Formatting was changed.

...

Agenda RFP 4 Call -- 23 December at 14:00 UTC

1. Work stream #1: Describing the current situation

1.1 Review of existing ICANN/IANA Technical proposal (available @ http://www.n2a.doc.gov/files/n2a/publica2ons/ icann_volume_i_elecsub_part_1_of_3.pdf )
1.2 Discussion of using table of contents from ICANN/IANA Technical proposal as a templete to develop text on how this will change depending on RFP 3 ( Contract Co. <-> all internal, inclusion of IAP etc. ).
1.3 Identify relevant terms in the ICANN proposal as well

AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert :

- I ask for comments on 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 please. Lack of comments, will be interpreted as consensus to proceed using the existing ICANN/IANA Technical proposal as a template.

2. Work Stream #2: Describing the transition path

2.1 Discussion occurred on how to describe the transition path for the different proposals from RFP 3
2.2 Draft text was presented on how to describe change
2.3 Transition path for alternate proposals (ie. ALAC)

AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert :

- 2.1 & 2.2 Is there any comment on ways to best ways describe the transition changes. A draft text was presented. Is there a consensus on using that as a format? Are there elements missing? Should a summary of changes be presented in some way?

- 2.3. Ask for update from ALAC an others who are suggesting/proposing alternate proposals and how (or not) they are including details on transition path from existing contract to new one.

3. Work Stream #3: Testing the new proposal

3.1 Need to document and discuss risks/treats and issues that might arise to maintain security & stability

AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert :

- 3.1 Ask that discussion start on the list and continue on the call on Dec 23 on compiling a list of risks/threats. Ask for feedback from everyone on the call tomorrow, especially those with security/stability (ie. ssac) expertise and others.. After call, will ask for staff to summarize the threats mentioned and how proposals might be tested.

3.2 Need to develop (detailed) list of key periods where testing of proposals is needed. Mention that “transition period” is a critical period where specific and detailed tests will need to be conducted.

AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert :

- 3.2 adding on what mentioned in 3.1, ask that conversation take place on the list and on the call on Dec 23 to develop a list of key periods where proposal should be tested (& how)

4. Review of timeline

5. Next steps (next call, etc)

Next call is scheduled for Monday Dec 29, 21:00 UTC

Notes RFP 4 Sub-WG group 23 December 2014

Welcome and Roll call

Previous Call Items

1. Background

2. Work stream #1 – Current Situation

3. Work stream #2 – Describing the transition path

4. Work stream #3 – Testing the proposal

5. Review of timeline & next steps

Notes & Action Items

Welcome and Roll call

Previous Call Items: Action from last call: "Jaap to follow up with KIm Davies" --> done. Jaap will post URL: http://www.iana.org/help/nameserver-requirements

Workstreams agreed previous call

Workstream 1

Agenda item for this call Comments on Workstream 1 as proposed: No comments

...

Workstream 2

Agenda item for this call included in slides,

...

comments on work item 2: No comments.
Update ALAC proposal: question is transition path included?

...

Proposal submitted in public comment process. Olivier identified several alternative proposals submitted. As to timetable under discussion by ALAC.
MM: Inherent problem ICANN internal solution relies on output CCWG Accountability and are subject to Board vote .
OCB: Timetable ALAC will include schedule of CCWG.
Accountability work is closely linked to Stewardship work, in particular Workstream 1 of CCWG.
In addition NTIA indicated it will not move forward without clarity around accountability.

...

Coordinator, Meed to capture critical elements of transition paths Need to capture critical elements of transition paths:

How to proceed: are there common elements in transition paths for all proposals?

No comments

Timelines RFP 4

Presented by staff
Current timeline does not include any alternatives.
Question for ALAC members to draft high level time line to be included.

Action OCB: To discuss timeline with his collegues and send result to the mailing list

...

ACTION OCL: To discuss timeline with his colleagues and send result to the mailing list

Suggestion to focus tasks that needs to be handled.

CAll for volunteersCall for volunteers.

Action staff: circulate call for volunteers to further elaborate tasks list

Action all: eleoborate tasks list in preparation of next call.

In particular those who are proposing alternate proposals are requested to look at tasks that need to handled.

Worskstream 3

Agenda item for today: Identify threats and risks.
SSAC member focused on technical risks. Note this group focuses on process risks.
Risk:

...

issues may get stuck in bureaucracy-

...

> delay and therefore may become a technical risk
Suggestion to do a systematic risk analysis.
Interaction between IANA/ICANN, NTIA and Verisign, simple administrative. By creating different layers and levels, communictions may become burdensome
Build on contingencies already identified in CCWG Accountability Area 4.
Includes general risk management categories are used:
Business threats other specific risks.
Suggestion to do a compilation of risks
Note: some of the risks are not related to transition.
Realty factor (possibility) is very low.
Raising policy issues in an administrative function may be overrated.
List of test identified.

Action staff aggregate the threats / risk list

Action Members Categorise elements on that list in: