Update / Revisit RFP 1, 2A, 2B & Schedule for the day (15:45 - 17:00 local time)

Attendees:

Members: 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;

**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.