Introduction, Review of Agenda, Timeline & Principles (08:45 - 10:40 local time)

---

Notes & Action Items

Introduction / Review of Agenda / Timeline

• Introductions 
  • Theresa Swinehart
  • Jim Tengrove
  • CWG Introductions
• Overall objective to publish comprehensive draft transition proposal for public comment by 1 December
• Significant progress made on 1, 2a, 2b and 2c
• RFP3 - objective to converge to a single, unified proposal at least at a framework level by end of day tomorrow
• Some time will be needed to allow for consultations / input by those that are not in attendance.

 

How to achieve these common objectives? 

• Ground rules: familiar with materials to date, focus on moving the conversation forward; ensure that all view points are raised (coordinators to assist in ensuring that all view points are raised); 
• possibility to have sideconversations if needed; 
• express views either as an individual or as representatives of your groups; no formal time limit for now, but please be aware of overall timeframe; please state rationale / motivation for any positions; 
• time is of the essence - but still need to do things thoroughly while recognizing the time constraints

 

Principles

• B1 Issue of business confidentiality
• Go through all principles
• Introduction: no comments

Security and Stability

• GAC input: Concerns of points
• New IANA Governance mechanism should not excessively burden flexibility and mobility of Internet and should be fit and for purpose.
• Relative to current situation 
• Suggestion to change word "burden" with "impair"
• Transition should be subject to stress testing  and incremental.
  • Incremental not by definition more stable
  • Incremental could be taken out
  • Rationale: to be revisited
• What does mobility and flexibility mean? 
  • Flexibility and mobility are taken out., makes it more unclear.
• Question: what does objectivity in this context? 
  • Accountability and objectivity at current level not at level required?
  • Change wording to reflect that current level needs to maintained. 
  • Presumption major changes. Some do and some do not.
  • Objectivity and accountability sentence taken out...

• What does stress test include? 

  • Square bracket point stress testing, not agreed, but not taken out either

  • Stress test at level of principles, may overly burden the work down the road.->  hence scare bracket.

B. Accountability and transparency principle

• GAC comment: vi. Appeals and redress
• Add independent, robust, affordable and timely.
• Includes Kurt Pritz comment as well.
• Concern: Appeals should not be on policy itself, but on implementation of policy
• Not limit to implementation but also on following a process. 

C Service levels

• Process should be automated: General expectation to look for automation or justify automation
• Ris of micro maangement, automation were possible and needed

 

 General remarks: 

• Keep principles as simple as possible
• Risk of Principles getting to detailed
• Words are not used consistently.

 

d Service quality

 i. Predictable

 Legacy ccTLD

Going back to the original text. Kurt Pritz and Paul Kane's comment are included.

Comment:

• IANA should work on the basis of policy established by other. i. policy (process) points should not go into this section
• Confusion created by structure of section

Basic assumption that policy authority creates policy that can be executed, and is predictable.

Issue if policy is to open to interpretation 

Interpretation are none not discriminatory

• Suggestion: Go back to high level
• Square bracket: nothing should be done to impact the stable operation of TLD registries post transition.
• Suggestion GAC to include delegation and redelegation section to align with national
• If principle is kept at high level no need to include
• Suggestion to include supplementary note

 

If delegation and redelgation were to be included, needs to be reflecte in way of role Local Internet Community and not national  law/ national policies

Focus is IANA transition and not policy. Principles is not document to include policy aspects. Goal of document is to  refer to policies and policy making bodies

• Suggestion is to include local polices and national legislation
• Suggestion to change structure

ACTIONS: 

• Proposal to be further discussed off-line
• Lise and Martin, to propose next version to the list later today and to be discussed further tomorrow
• CWG should be able to comment as well

Transcript

The transcript will be posted here upon receipt

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3m54vwz6p6/

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented

Project Plan - CWG-IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions_20141116

Draft of Principles v2b redline-pk-kp-ad.docx

Chat Transcript

Marika Konings:Welcome to the CWG Stewardship F2F Meeting of Wednesday 19 November 2014

  Greg Shatan:Good morning, etc., all!

  Marika Konings:How is the sound for those participating remotely?

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Audio perfect

  Marika Konings:Thanks for confirming!

  Desiree Miloshevic:it is fine

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:morning (really moring)

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:morning (really morning) 2.55am Lima :)

  Amr Elsadr:Hi everyone.

  Glen de Saint Gery:audio has gone off

  Marika Konings:audio should be back - the mic went off briefly

  Glen de Saint Gery:thanks Marika! back and perfect

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:yes audio is fine now

  Matthew Shears (CDT):morning all

  Robert Guerra:Welcome all.

  Robert Guerra:Is there a specific hashtag to use for any live tweeting of the meeting?

  Marika Konings:Test

  Amr Elsadr:@Robert: Not that I can tell. Just #iana.

  Amr Elsadr:Which I see you've already used. :)

  Robert Guerra:Yes, have been using #iana so far.

  Greg Shatan:I've also seen #ianasteward .

  Geetha Hariharan:Audio has dropped.

  Presentation Laptop:@Geetha - there are some technical issues here so we are pausing for a couple of minutes to get it fixed

  Presentation Laptop:we should be back shortly

  Grace Abuhamad:we are pausing to fix Internet in the room

  seun:Hi

  seun:+1 on that comment. There is need to have time to discuss this with respective communities and get back

  Matthew Shears (CDT):we must also ensure that we are giving this the appropriate time and consideration and not feel we have to rush to make the December 1 date - and if need be consider whether we may need to meet again

  Amr Elsadr:@Seun: Absolutely, but there is a reality that we don't have too much time left, so I take Jonathan's point that we DO need to be very target oriented.

  seun:I agree @Amr

  Robert Guerra:Principles doc is also available on the wiki @ https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49352017/Draft%20of%20Principles%20v2b%20redline-pk-kp-ad.docx?api=v2

  Berry Cobb:Avri submitted comments on 16 Nove to the Principles 2b draft.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):are the GAC principles available?

  Peter Van Roste - ccTLDs:@matthew: http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm

  Robert Guerra:As has been expressed earlier, I worry about the additional complexity we are adding to this section.

  Robert Guerra:I"m curious if there might be a way to capture the sentiment of the paragraph being added in less words.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):+ 1 Robert

  Amr Elsadr:@Elise: When the GAC says transition should be subject to stress testing, is that specific to a certain transition? Stress testing transition of the steward or possible future transition of the IANA operator?

  Allan MacGillivray:+1 Robert

  Amr Elsadr:Both?

  Malcolm Hutty:Is this really "under" security and stability. It strikes me as a separate bullet, probably under "Maintain the open Internet"

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:I wonder what stress testing means here.. how you want to test this and is there any data already available?

  Matthew Shears (CDT):Do we really need the second sentence on accountability - isn't the sentiment and principle already incorporated in the first under Security and Stability?

  Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO/RySG):+1 to striking the second sentence

  Robert Guerra:Good suggestion on the proposed revision to the new text

  Amr Elsadr:If objectivity refers to "in accordance with developed policy", it could simply be taken out as this is covered later in the document under "performance standards".

  Robert Guerra:Is there another term to use for stress testing and what is meant by it after the 1st sentance?

  Robert Guerra:+1 on thinking other places where "stress testing" can be placed in the document or discussions we have

  Malcolm Hutty:+1 to that

  Robert Guerra:Support that perhaps we might want to add a new Para - Open Internet, as it seperate core principle vs. security stability

  Robert Guerra:and move the text being suggested there

  Matthew Shears (CDT):We could possibly say: Assess the impact of changes in IANA stewardship on the security and stablility of the DNS.  But this is a process issue more than the principle

  Malcolm Hutty:Promote it to a new bullet

  Jonathan Robinson:Note: Stress testing is already baked into the ICG I understand

  Matthew Shears (CDT):just out of curiosity - is there an appeals process at the moment?

  Amr Elsadr:Although I don't really understand what would be involved in stress testing, I don't think it's the same as the transition implications requirement of the ICG RFP. The RFP asks for the community to try to anticipate and describe possible implications, but testing is not explicitly stated as a requirement.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):(a) should really read: a. Security and stability:  Changes must not undermine the operation of the IANA function and should assure the security and stability of the Internet

  Robert Guerra:I think there's a board independant appeals process. Not sure if that is being referred to or something else.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:quick question: are we going to address Elise's GAC comments first or are we going to go through the document paragraph by paragraph?

  Nathalie  Peregrine:@ all, please remember to state your names for transcript purposes.

  Amr Elsadr:The GNSO isn't strictly a policy "authority". It's where gTLD policy recommendations are developed, then sent to the board for approval to become ICANN policy.

  seun:what does "if the policy is lacking mean?" there are clear existing process that describe how iana staff seek clarification on a particular policy text. At least I am positive on numbers

  Amr Elsadr:@Jonathan: +1

  seun:so I don't see why we are discussing this because there is an existing process which is into by any means influenced by NTIA

  Robert Guerra:FYI - IETF has a new draft out titled - “Principles for Operation of Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Registries” <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-iana-principles-00.txt>

  Robert Guerra:URL correction - http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-iana-principles-00.txt

  Mary Uduma:I am not seeing the document remotely.  Can it please be projected?

  seun:it seem the connection is out in the room @Mary

  Marika Konings:Apologies, connectivity dropped here but all should be back again

  Mary Uduma:Thanks, it is restored.

  seun:thanks

  seun:absolute +1 on that comment

  seun:I think there a difference between existing principles and what we intend to propose. Everything we are proposing is to be covered in rfp3. We seem to be creating a principle proposal without even arriving at the rfp3 yet.

  Vika Mpisane:I agree with you, Seun. I think we're getitng into too much detail when we just need to state key underpinning principles

  Vika Mpisane:The rest of the language Malcolm is proposing belongs to RFP3

  Amr Elsadr:@Vika: +1. This document is looking a little more like an operational manual.

  Vika Mpisane:Yes, Amr:-)

  Mary Uduma:+ 1 Vika

  Marika Konings:Note that we are taking a break now until 11.00 local time (10.00 UTC)

  seun:absolutely Vika

  Vika Mpisane:Seun, are not coming here (Frankfurt)?

  seun:will be there in the afternoon