The 13 November full CWG meeting ended an hour early. Greg, as rapporteur of RFP3, motioned to use the time available to continue RFP3 discussions. This request was accepted and the second hour of the call was dedicated to RFP3. Please refer to the meeting notes, recording, and transcript to review this session. 

Full notes to from the 13 November meeting are available here. Notes specific to the RFP 3 discussions have been posted below so that there is a clear archive. 

Notes from Special Session on RFP3

Reconvening RFP 3 (15.30 UTC)

Continuation of discussion RFP 3

Chaired by Greg Shatan

Take live edits in documents (Grace)


  • Could other options be considered, how to reduce the number of alternatives
  • Any alternative is up for discussion
  • Reiteration of elements in Matrix
  • Comments of current participants
  • Put in comments something around participation of SO/AC's in committee
  • Why should there be an external oversight, with external independent IANA? Avoid to create two independent bodies.
  • comments on Legal Status
  • Jurisdiction is not part of discussion, Incorporated or non-incorporated, -> liability of participants in committee
  • What is composition of committee?
  • How will security and stability interests will be build into oversight body?   Checks and balances in group makes feel more comfortable.
  • Security and stability role of ICANN, no change as result of strawman 2 & 3? 
  • Robert Guerra to send note on element to the group
  • Possibly IANA security and stability. To date no role IANA security and stability , if no change in role -> no need to include.
  • Need to understand the consequence of proposal, before taken definite point. 
  • Note if policy is not in interest of registries, limiting oversight only to registries counterproductive
  • Documentation to replace NTIA Contract
  • Reiteration what is in the matrix
  • No time to build contract, term sheet should be possible
  • How will naming Proposal be matched with other proposal going to be matched and by whom
  • Need by group to check feasibility of matching proposals. CWG members are encouraged to look at other proposals. 
  • All, continue work on Matrix document in Google docs and Pro's Con's doc
  • Call closed at 16:00 UTC

  • NOTE: changes should be made in suggestion mode and by person (not anonymous)



Transcript RFP3 Meeting #3 Nov132014.docx

Transcript RFP3 Meeting #3 Nov13 2014.pdf



The Adobe Connect recording for this session starts at (1:05:24) and is available here:

The audio recording for this session starts at (1:05:57) and is available here:


Documents Presented

Strawman Matrix.docx

Chat Transcript

** clipped for special session specific to RFP3, which started at 15:30 UTC **


  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO):I have revised the Strawman Matrix to add a column for Strawman 4..

  Avri Doria:so befoe we even have time to create o4, we are going to go further discussing 103.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Greg do you want me to load Google Docs?

  Avri Doria:...1-3

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO):@Grace: yes.

  Avri Doria:hey, if discussing 3 option is the way to get consensus go for it.

  Avri Doria:i sitll opject to going into an RP#, but what the heck.

  Robert Guerra:can you please share the URL here as well. thank you

  Matthew Shears (CDT):discussion should not preclude other options going into next week

  Grace Abuhamad:

  Robert Guerra:thank you grace

  Avri Doria:i am joining another call now.

  Mark Carvell, UK Government:I think it would be helpful for the community, observers and the wider audience (includign UN and its agencies) for the meeting Chair to issue a statement about progress of the CWG's work - a kind of short interim report which would allay fears that there might not be substantial progress being achieved.  

  Grace Abuhamad:@Mark that's a good idea. Something to address with the Chairs

  Matthew Shears (CDT):agree strawman 4 is a separate option rather than a composite

  Guru Acharya:@Greg: What is the purpose of a new entity for oversight in Strawman 3. Cant the oversight mechanism reside inside ICANN as an internal committee? This would avoid need for funding/jurisdition for the oversight body. The governing documents (SLA etc) can be between ICANN and the new IANA entity.

  Guru Acharya:sorry. i didnt mean governing documents. i meant documentation to replace ntia contract

  Amr Elsadr:@Guru: I believe this is what is being suggested in strawman 1.

  Guru Acharya:in strawman 1 there is no new IANA entity.

  Guru Acharya:in strawman 3, we are creating a new entity for iana

  Guru Acharya:the names community is different from iana

  Guru Acharya:structurally separate

  Matthew Shears (CDT):its a bout degrees of separabilty and/or separation

  Amr Elsadr:@Guru: Yes. That is correct. In SM1, there is no new IANA entity, but the oversight committee is within ICANN. This can be "mixed and matched" with other models, I suppose.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):no model assumes ICANN has IANA function in perpetuity - the key issue of separability exists in each model

  Guru Acharya:we need a new legal entity for oversight only if the names community is structurally integrated with iana. In case of a new iana entity, a new eneity for oversight seems refundant.

  Guru Acharya:i agreed with mitons mail yesterday about the need for periodic bidding for iana

  Amr Elsadr:I don't personally see the "enhanced seprability" features of SM1 and SM2 to actually allow for seprability that is independent of ICANN.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):@ amr - that needs clarifying as separability that is independnet of ICANN is an important consideration

  Donna Austin, RySG:Greg, to what extent, if any, do you see any of these strawmen covering the 'clerical' functions currently performed by NTIA?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG, Verisign):Regarding funding: What is the difference between funding by ICANN and funding by registries? Over 95% of ICANN's revenue comes from gTLD registrants via registries and registrars and another 1-2% from ccTLD registries.

  Amr Elsadr:@Matt: I agree. In SM1, IANA is a division within ICANN. In SM2, it is a wholly ownded subsidiary. That means a decision to seperate at a later date under those two models would involve ICANN agreeing to it.

  Alan Greenberg:Chuck, my recollection was that the discussion was around the scenario where IANA is no longer associated with ICANN - how is it funded then.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG, Verisign):@ Alan: I get that but I think my question still stands.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):@ guru - agree - is the option for periodic bidding there or is it only foreseen in the strawmen based only upon failure to perform?

  Guru Acharya:i didnt mean governing documents. i meant documentation to replace ntia contract

  Allan MacGillivray (.ca):@Chuck - do you think that the registry community could actually come to an agreement on funding?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG, Verisign):@ Allan: I would like to hope so; it probably depends on the details.

  Alan Greenberg:But perhaps gTLD operators would be less willing to fund the ccTLD part of IANA's responsibilities.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG, Verisign):@ Allan: I don't think that registries in either SO would agree to continue paying fees at current levels to ICANN and also paying fees to support a separate IANA on top of that.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:And let us remember that some ccTLDs for a variety of reasons cannot pay a US based comapany anything

  Donna Austin, RySG:generally the security and stability issues fall to the ICANN Board, I don't understand how that role will change under any of these arrangements.

  Guru Acharya:@matthew: i think sm2 and sm3 look at a limited term for the contract. but i dont think they mention how the new contractor will be selected.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Another relevant point wtih respect to ccTLDs and charging is that as a rule ccTLDs will object to having to sign anytype of agreement.

  Guru Acharya:@greg: A MS body is also needed in case a decision about a new IANA operator is being taken by the oversight body - because we will be dealing with a number of policy issues.

  Alan Greenberg:Sorry, dropped off

  Amr Elsadr:@Guru: I think you're right for SM2, but in SM3 I (personally) understand that the oversight body would determine if a contract is renewed or a new contractor is sought.

  Grace Abuhamad:Do we know who is building out strawman 4? Lot's of work going on in the document!

  Allan MacGillivray (.ca):@Bernie - good point, which is why I have concersn about registries coming to an overall agreement on funding.  

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:TYaking this to the next level IF ccTLDs are to be represented in an EXTERNAL oversight entity they would probably have the same concern of have to sign up as members etc.

  Guru Acharya:how is a SLA to be enforced in strawman 1 - legally speaking - since both parties are within ICANN?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:The current NTIA arrangement clearly states that there can be no charges for the IANA services

  Amr Elsadr:I think I need somebody to explain the problem with funding to me. Funding is already via registries (g's and some cc's). Couldn't the portion of funds needed for IANA operations be redirected from ICANN to the new IANA inc.? That would probably increase some overhead costs, but I don't imagine it would be much.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):agree we need some amended contract to go forward which implies that there is a contracting entity and that the contract is term limited

  Alan Greenberg:@Amr. If ICANN and IANA no longer have any relationship, how/why such funding would be arranged could be problematic.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:very problematic

  Amr Elsadr:@Alan: Which part? Redirecting the funds away from ICANN, or towards the new IANA inc? Both?

  Allan MacGillivray (.ca):@Amr - ccTLD financial contributions to ICANN are, for the most part, voluntary.  Many ccTLDs may be unwilling to commit to fund a new body.  A new body would need certainty on funding to proceed.  If only the gTLDs were willing to commit to funding, would they be willing to let the ccTLD community be respresented on the board?

  Amr Elsadr:On the ICANN side, I suppose it would require renegotiating some aspects of the registry agreement.

  Wale Bakare:>>That would probably increase some overhead costs<< How would the seperation of IANA from ICANN create a probable overhead?

  Grace Abuhamad:@Donna I think this is also part of RFP4

  Amr Elsadr:@Allan: I think you pointed to the exact issue I am having difficulty understanding. Why would CC's who voluntarily donate to ICANN not wish to do so with a new IANA?

  Matthew Shears (CDT):the anonymous penguin is probably avri

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:For the record, I am ocl999 on the Google Doc & only added 1 comment

  Amr Elsadr:@Wale: That is only an assumption on my part. I'm guessing overheads may include information infrastructure, costs of oversight body meetings, and others I can't really think of.

  Donna Austin, RySG:Amr, the cc's would be more likely to contribute funding to the organisation that provides the IANA function, and for strawman 3, the consequence is likely that ccTLD contributions to ICANN will be redirected.

  Allan MacGillivray (.ca):@Amr - could a new entity be created solely on the 'hope' for future payments?  This is where I have doubts.

  Amr Elsadr:@Donna: That's my assumption as well.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Greg -- ok will do

  Amr Elsadr:@Allan: Obviously, the ccTLDs would need to endorse the proposal this group puts forward including funding mechanisms they are involved in.

  Wale Bakare:@Amr, thanks. How are the functions currently being carried out? Who funds the operation of the functions, which staff carrying out the functions?

  Guru Acharya:@Donna - I agree that ccTLDs will have no incentive to provide funds to ICANN in case of a new IANA entity.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Amr and Donna - Donna is probably correct but what Allan is looking at is that the money that is coming into ICANN now is outside of a contract  requirement

  Amr Elsadr:@Wale: There is dedicated IANA staff now, but IANA shares the same BoDs with ICANN. Funding is via registries.

  Matthew Shears (CDT):I agree with Olivier's concerns on coordination

  Matthew Shears (CDT):and compatibility

  Allan MacGillivray (.ca):@Wale - the ICANN opertional plans puts the direct cost of IANA at about $2.7 million.

  Amr Elsadr:@Bernard @Allan: Thanks to both of you. I'm beginning to see the problem.

  Amr Elsadr:@Allan: I recall it being closer to $10 million.

  Alan Greenberg:@Amr, an ICANN which cares about the S&S of the Internet will of course want to see IANA continue functioning. But in parallel, and ICANN that has had IANA uncerremoniously ripped from their control may not be all that cooperative.

  Grace Abuhamad:Confirmed #4 is Avri

  Lise Fuhr:Thank you Greg - have a nice day, evening, morning etc.

  Grace Abuhamad:Avri = Peguin

  Wale Bakare:@Amr, i think the concerns left the CWG-RFP3 to optioned the proposal on Strawmen

  Chuck Gomes (RySG, Verisign):Thanks Greg & Lise

  Staffan Jonson:Thank You. Bye

  Carolina Aguerre:Thank you  all!

  Matthew Shears (CDT):thanks for a good call - see you next week

  Donna Austin, RySG:Thanks Greg

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Thanks all.

  Lise Fuhr:Goodbye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye then... now to prep for my next call.  this makes 2 nights midnight tonpostbdawn.  sigh

  Wale Bakare: @Amr, i think the concerns left the CWG-RFP3 to optioning the proposal on Strawmen

  Wale Bakare:Thanks, bye

  Tomohiro Fujisaki:Thank you, Bye!!

  Allan MacGillivray (.ca):@Amr - I just checked the FY15 plan - it is showing $2.6 million

  • No labels