Meeting #1 CWG-RFP3 (6 November 2014)

---

Proposed Agenda: 

1. Welcome & Roll Call
2. Coordination Team for RFP3 subgroup
3. Timeline & Deliverables
4. Review of Variables document and CWG RFP 2A document
5. AOB

Notes & Action Items

Coordination Team for RFP3 subgroup

• Additional volunteers requested to serve as vice-co-ordinators
• Allan McGillivray (ccTLD) has volunteered
• Consider possible additional volunteer from gTLD registry / technical side?

 

Timeline & deliverables

• 1 December target date for publication of Initial Proposal for public comment
• In order for the Frankfurt F2F meeting to be fruitful, it would be helpful to have some materials available ahead of that meeting
• As there is a short timeframe between now and F2F meeting, important to map out a work between now and then
• Deliverable for RFP 3: This section should describe what changes your community is proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of the transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or more existing arrangements with new arrangements, that replacement should be explained and all of the elements listed in Section II.B should be described for the new arrangements. Your community should provide its rationale and justification for the new arrangements. If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those implications should be described here. If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should be provided here.
• Consider forming two small sub-groups, one to look at ccTLDs and other at gTLDs - might assist in sharing the workload and ensure preparations for F2F meeting. Volunteers for ccTLD group: Paul Kane, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Erick Iriarte. Important to clarify what these sub-groups will be doing as a single proposal is expected as a deliverable. Sub-groups to gather information / perspectives that are peculiar to those specific communities, but ultimate proposal(s) will need to address both gTLDs and ccTLDs issues and concerns. All discussions to take place on the RFP3 mailing list which will allow people with specific expertise (ccTLD or gTLD) contribute to the conversation and provide specific perspectives. gTLD registries have set up a small group to discuss and hash out some of the elements that are specific to gTLDs, but working in isolation is not going to be helpful.

 

Review of CWG RFP 2a Document

• Are there going to be implicatons for the existing policy arrangements - see section IIA of RFP Section 2A proposal:
• RFC1591 - unlikely to change
• ICANN Bylaws - not likely, but possible
• ICP-1 - unlikely to change
• Principles for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code top Level Domains: unlikely to change
• GNSO PDP Manual / WG Guidelines: unlikely to change (or at least not linked to the transition)
• new gTLD applicant guidebook: unlikely to change (or at least not linked to the transition)
• IANA Functions Contract: will definitely change
• Framework of Interpretation: just published document
• Existing arrangements - will need to be referenced in the RFP response
• Delegation and re-delegation of gTLDs - line 2-6 and 2-7 will need to be dealt with
• Modification of root zone file - line 3-3 will need to be addressed
• Consider breaking down 2A section into gTLD and ccTLD sections, both for policy sources and root zone file modifications. Process, procedures and execution are at the heart of this transition.
• Independent review process is not mentioned in 2A - overall dispute resolution mechanism. Is expected to be covered in 2B - not included here as it was not developed as a consensus policy by ccNSO or GNSO as dispute resolution within the policy development process.
• Dispute resolution processes: to be further reviewed

 

Action item: All encouraged to review  2A document and think about how any of these process steps may change

 

Variables Document

• Checklist / must have in any proposal
• First draft - check proposals against list. Intended to be a living document.. Consider reorganizing in order of priority.
• Status of oversight body - does presume that there is an oversight body (no proposals to date that do not have an oversight body). Oversight may not be the right term - depends how it is defined. Consider something like contracting authority? Oversight to be done by direct customers, with feedback of everyone interested / involved going back to contracting authority? Multi-stakeholder oversight? Also administrative functions currently performed - should those stay and performed by whom? Need to define / clarify what the current oversight role entails - all covered in the contract. Some parts of the oversight could be transferred to the community? Need to be much more specific with what oversight means to clarify the concept. Policies set by MSM, if oversight is done only by contracted parties might not be appropriate but should also have MS aspects. Different aspects to oversight: SLAs (ccTLD/gTLD operators); certification before delegation (independent panel(ist); policy issues - appeal mechanism if IANA function is performed against adopted policies (ICANN, if IANA stays within ICANN). May be other models that could be reviewed as possible examples (e.g. telco world - have beyond industry representation in authority responsible for contracting, auditing and/or compliance)
• Document will be put up in google docs so that everyone can make changes / additions
• Composition of oversight body - consider including more general language to accomodate should IANA move out of ICANN in some point in the future
• Oversight body: yes, or no, if yes, within ICANN or not, what would the composition be - consider putting together table of advantages / inconveniences of each option

 

Next steps:

• Continue discussion on list
• First draft of deliverable to be developed by Greg
• No next call between now and next CWG meeting - use email list for further conversations

Transcript

The transcript is available here: RFP_Meeting1_6Nov.doc

Recordings

(the recordings will be posted here)

 

Documents Presented

Draft List of Variables.pdf

IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal - 3 Nov 14.docx

Chat Transcript

 Marika Konings:Welcome to the CWG-RFP3 meeting of 6 November 2014

  Camino Manjon:Good afternoon everyone

  Greg Shatan:Good morning, afternoon aned evening, all

  Robert Guerra:Grace - is the conference code still CWG IANA ?

  Robert Guerra:i tried dialing in - and they said such a code wasn't active... are we not using it for this sub-group?

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):code is rfp3

  Robert Guerra:ah.ok

  Graeme Bunton:Omnious horror movie sound effects?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello

  Erick Iriarte:good morning :) here in costa rica the day is great :)

  Lars Erik Forsberg:Hi everyone

  Fatima Cambronero:hello everyone

  Wale Bakare:Hi everyone

  Seun Ojedeji:Hi Wale

  Wale Bakare:Hi Seun, nice seeing you here

  Berry Cobb:In regards to the timeline we have on our current Project Plan (starting 4 Nov) until 24 Nov to produce the RFP3 Draft.  With this deadline, that allows the greater CWG 1 calendar week to pull in all RFP drafts into a single document and conduct edits from there.

  Berry Cobb:That said, that does not mean contributions to RFP3 will cease on 24 Nov, just a deadline date to allow the larger group to edit the full RFP.

  Seun Ojedeji:Meanwhile i think there may be need to update the timeline as the subgroup 4 has a delivery of Nov 10th

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:Will we be breaking up into groups in Frankfurt?

  Berry Cobb:@Suen, the latest PP has the 24th as a due date for RFP4 as well.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Correct for Allan

  Berry Cobb:We will upload the latest project plan to the wiki.

  Seun Ojedeji:okay will check-out the update then @Berry

  Seun Ojedeji:thanks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:best add me to the CC group as well

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:having served in the FOI WG for hears :-)

  Berry Cobb:The latest project plan for CWG-Stewardship is here:  https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359886/CWG-IANA%20Stewardship-Naming%20Related%20Functions_20141102.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1415283562924&api=v2

  Erick Iriarte:I would like to help in sub-group ccTLD

  Lars Erik Forsberg:Difficult for GAC members to pic one of the groups?

  Milton:I agree with Greg about this

  Wale Bakare:I also think these sub-groups should have timeline prior to the F2F meeting in Frankfurt

  Brenden Kuerbis:@MM The risk of framenting part?

  Milton:yes

  Milton:Going off into silos.

  Berry Cobb:Please, I remind speakers to first announce their name before making their statements for transcript purposes.  Thank you.

  Milton:ccTLDs and gTLDs use the same IANA. While they have different sources of policy, they use the same functions

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:Also agree with Greg. If we isolate propsals for the different types of TLDs, it'll probably be because we're overcomplicating things, and treading dangerously close to policy issues.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@berry can you also email links put in chat or send a copy of the full chat not all   OSs allow live links from AC. rooms (e.g. my Android one)

  Berry Cobb:@CLO - copy that.  Will do.

  Erick Iriarte:so now our chair (greg) will have the important role to mix to perspective and realities related to TLDs

  Erick Iriarte:o now our chair (greg) will have the important role to mix two perspective and realities related to TLDs

  Seun Ojedeji:But that was the same thing that was done for rfp1 and 2 so cc and gtld should work together to provide their content

  Seun Ojedeji:I really don't see how having sub-sub-group will make things faster

  Seun Ojedeji:Thank you for that question!

  Erick Iriarte:in some point ccTLDs and gTLDs are so different (in special related with local policies and local regulation). In the case gTLDs is only one legislation (US - contracts), in case of ccTLDs you have almost one legislation by country (in some cases have more regulations)

  Milton:echoes!

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Noise in the line

  Brenden Kuerbis:But that is all policy related

  Brenden Kuerbis:@Erick

  Seun Ojedeji:@Eric Yes they are and those differences where also raised on rfp1 and 2 respectively without necessarily creating sub-sub-group

  Brenden Kuerbis:Once the policy is settled, the inputs to IANA are very similar

  Robert Guerra:might I suggest that sub-sub groups get tasks to develop specific languate to gTLD/cTLD in parallel to this sub-group. It's just putting tgogether experts to help make sure text icomes from that community. I

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:yes

  Marika Konings:What if the sub-groups would conduct their work on the main RFP3 list so that everyone has visilibity to the conversation and can provide input as needed?

  Robert Guerra:let's not get stuck on process of the sub-sub groups, instead focus on the main topics at hand and develop language which we need

  Erick Iriarte:@milton : we always listen you :)

  Wale Bakare:Considering the criticality of RFP3 proposal, i think, it's imperative to capture all important elements for the full proposal. Thereby, having the ccTLD and gTLD not bad. But the challenge is getting a well riched documents ready prior to the F2F

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):#Greg: Thanks

  Brenden Kuerbis:We just need to ensure that IANA implments according to the policy set by ccTLDs, gTLDs

  Milton:+1 Brenden

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Greg

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Are we going to create more mailing lists to do this work?

  Seun Ojedeji:@Eduardo no all discussion will happen on rfp3

  Wale Bakare:@Eduardo, am not really sure about that

  Brenden Kuerbis:Agree with Stephanie's comment

  Wale Bakare:as there's cwg-rfp3 mailing list already

  Erick Iriarte:...

  Erick Iriarte:i have troubles with my mic

  Erick Iriarte:sorry

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Seun: that will complicate things. Imagine the traffic flow: cctld subgrou communicating with its memeber, gtld sugroup to theirs and the rest ALL in one place. How do you know what is what?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:2B has not been published yet

  Seun Ojedeji:@Eduardo  if we were able to pull that off for the 1 and 2a,b then rfp 3 will be easier to handle

  Seun Ojedeji:its better cctld and gtld experienced folks put in their part in one document so we see how it all fits hollistically

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Seun: I think the issues in this group are more complex. This is the PROPOSAL

  Wale Bakare:@seun, that would unnecessary create a an overhead

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:GAC Principles assume IANA Operator is in ICANN -

  Milton:Bernard: that's a problem

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:If there are any changes required to the GNSO PDP, this may involve accountability issues that should be addressed by the broader ICANN accountability CWG.

  Wale Bakare:@Seun, that would unnecessarily create an overhead with time constraint

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed @bernie

  Seun Ojedeji:@Wale could you explain why you so. Because i think that is even the best way to move faster instead of creating content in isolation and then trying to fit them together

  Robert Guerra:Guidebook & PDP process, in as much as they document the process - would have to be updated accordingly

  Wale Bakare:+1 Eduardo's suggestion on mailing lists makes sense, i think

  Seun Ojedeji:we already have a fragmentation at IANA level communities already(which is for ICG to worry about)...we don't have to put more here

  Alan Greenberg:NETmundial Webinar starts in 18 minutes.  Are we planning to break for that?

  Marika Konings:Please note that you all have scroll control

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Note - the next version of 2A will have an additional item for IDN ccTLD Fasty Track which was omitted in the intial version

  Marika Konings:Page 6 in Adobe Connect

  Wale Bakare:@Seun, you have point though, but getting the right balance round the workloads important at this stage. The ccTLD and gTLD sub-groups could work amongst themselves an at interval have others' contributions

  Robert Guerra:in P7/ step 2-6 no doubt where we need to focus our discussions

  Milton:did you like the first poiont about separating G and CC parts of 2A?

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to @Robert

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:This will be covered in 2B

  Seun Ojedeji:and we need to just determine if 2-7 can be forgotten going forward

  Camino Manjon:Agree with MIlton that IRP could be factored in

  Milton:Bernard: ok, but doesn't 2A ask about dispute resolution?

  Milton:oK, I get it. 2B is oversight and accountability - IRP fits better in there

  Milton:Ha! 2B or not 2B

  Grace Abuhamad:Nice @Milton!

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Milton, I think the  dispute considerations in 2A were for inside the policy dev., process

  Milton:Yes, I got it now. makes sense

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:Agree with Robert and Seun. Focus should be more on 2-6, and a discussion on the need for 2-7 to remain should take place.

  Milton:strictly speaking IRP cases can come from inside the policy process (in fact, they usually do) but I think it is more of an accountability measure than a DRP for policy

  Robert Guerra:Process should be there - question is what entity does it, and processed that allow it to make that decision

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Milton - probably not for cc's

  Milton:Could a ccTLD avail itself of the IRP

  Milton:?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Yes on a Board decision

  Milton:OK

  Seun Ojedeji:@Robert i think that process 2-7 is somewhat a repitition of process 2-6 (in part)

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):bernard - is the reconsideration request also being discussed within 2b?

  Milton:I would think Reconsideration would fit more in policy DRP

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Stephanie - described and presented in 2B -yes

  Milton:I will have to depart. Don't do anything crazy ;-)

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Milton - I think we need a vote on that...

  Milton:consensus!!!!

  Seun Ojedeji:Hahah...lol Milton....!!! Thank god you are leaving ;)

  Robert Guerra:Believe there should be an oversight body.

  Alan Greenberg:Needs to be more than "advisory" in current def'n

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agreed @alan g

  Robert Guerra:when oportune, please advise if can make comment on A&B

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and must be a MSG in my view

  Seun Ojedeji:It depends on what oversight body is referred to here. So yes i am in favor of oversight so long as its interpretted into a mechanism within ICANN

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Let's add an. CA - Contracting Authority to the list in Box A.  to encompass @amr's point

  Wale Bakare:I also think the oversight should include not only service level but, i my humble opinion, would suggest Service Delivery and Level Agreement because it centers on direct customers

  Seun Ojedeji:I am so much in agreement with the current speaker

  Wale Bakare:SDLA - Service Delivery and Level Agreement

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:depends on the definition of what the 'oversight body' is tasked with

  Sivasubramanian M:For IANA, we might need a 3 tier system,  a) all tehcnical (routine) functions grouped under Functions or Operations, with an emphasis on greater technical participation or only Technical participation. b) a Management Tier, which is either internal to IANA or housed within ICANN that takes care of most of what is dicussed as "oversight" and c) a higher oversight that needs to be discussed

  Sivasubramanian M:b) needs to be multi-stakeholder as with the present ICANN multistakeholder structure

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Greg: I think we may be saying the same thing, but it may be the semantics that are the issue here.

  Sivasubramanian M:c) could also be multistakeholder but that would require a modified model with an emphasis on the required experience and expertise for oversight

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:We may want to replace oversight with a different word.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Amr: MAybe use coordinator (again)

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:could we have a oversight mechanism rather than a set function  - that could step into function if needed ? just a thought

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Eduardo: I personally like "contracting authority". It seems to me to be the most descriptive term to the function I would like to see. :)

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:An authority that enforces contractual compliance, and decides on renewal and/or dissolving the agreement.

  Alan Greenberg:"coordinator" and "contracting authority" are likely to be VERY different functions...

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Alan: I agree.

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Seun: +1, but I would go further by saying specific groups within the ICANN community.

  Alan Greenberg:pROBABLY NOT THE TIME FOR DETAILED DESIGN RIGHT NOW.

  Alan Greenberg:Oops - sorry for caps

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:Not trying to go into detailed design right now, but the context of the approach may be influenced by what descriptive labels we choose right now. I see way too much oversight and nothing else on this document right now. Thought it'd be good to just put this on the record now.

  Brenden Kuerbis:Perhaps Administrative Body would be the most appropriate term. In that it could (depending on the solution we design) administer a contract with an operator to provide the IANA functions.

  Brenden Kuerbis:Or it could have some other sort of mechanism with the operator.

  Greg Shatan:@Amr: What do you think is missing?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Alan - I agree !

  Camino Manjon:agree with current speaker. Registries may have conflicts with current bottom-up policy and may not be well suited to perform oversight fx.

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Alan: Policy would dictate the terms of the contract, wouldn't it?

  Wale Bakare:+1 Elise

  Wanawit Ahkuputra GAC:+1Elise

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Greg: It's not really what's missing, but how the division of roles between customers and oversight/administrator/authority is done.

  Alan Greenberg:@Amr, don't much care about words. We need to ensure the policy is followed, and that service level commitments are met.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):+1 Alan

  Alan Greenberg:@Stephanie, if "oversight" by Ry/ccTLD is only with respect to service levels, then that has never been said where I saw it.

  Alan Greenberg:Have not really thought about it, but I *might* agree to the restriction for only SL.

  Seun Ojedeji:I think something like that is existing

  Seun Ojedeji:it was shared on Gdocs

  Seun Ojedeji:need to look for the url

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Olivier: I will add what type of  oversigth

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Technical? Administrative?

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:This has "somewhat" been done: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bycchop8VaMWVlJBalk4VG1CelE&usp=sharing&tid=0Bycchop8VaMWeDFnY3FXckRJbWc

  Wale Bakare:@Amr, thanks for the link

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:;-)

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:+1 Edvardo Diaz

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:The Google Doc which you point out is helpful, Amr, but clearly this needs to be expanded. Because otherwise I do not know how we are going to make heads or tails of all of the points of view here :-)

  Grace Abuhamad:@Seun we are dialing back to you

  Seun Ojedeji:Actually there is another one that had 5 scenarios

  Seun Ojedeji:i just can't seem to find the url right now

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Olivier: Yes, of course. It also addresses IANA as a whole, and not specifically the oversight body you were asking about. That's why I said "somewhat". :)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I really like the document that has the list of variables

  Wale Bakare:@Eduardo, what about Technical for SLA, while Adminitrative - validation/verification/policy?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:funding? It's all FREE! :-)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:If we choose no new body then we're pretty much finished with our task.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):At what point in our discussion do we decide where IANA is going to reside? I think it should be soon since I am under the impression that it will drive the rest of the proposal

  Wale Bakare:@Seun, it's same link shared 2 days ago for variables , compositions and pros and cons

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Eduardo - are you sure? We don't even know if the function will be separated or not

  Fatima Cambronero:+1 @Eduardo

  Alan Greenberg:Monday mid-day for me.

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Eduardo: Similar to a principle of IANA being separable from ICANN, have you considered the residence being movable? :)

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):happy to work on documentation as well - sorry for being mum at the start of the call

  Alan Greenberg:I think it is an old hand that has not yet been recognized.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:that was a new hand, gre!

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Bye - Adios

  Seun Ojedeji:Thanks

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):thanks greg, thanks alL!

  Wale Bakare:Thanks, bye

  Fatima Cambronero:thanks all. Bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye thanks all thanks Greg

  Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:Thank all. Bye.

  Greg Shatan:Thank you all.  Bye!

  Camino Manjon:bye!

  Greg Shatan:Olivier -- so sorry I did not see your note!

  Seun Ojedeji:bye