RFP3 (8:00 -9:40 local time)

---

Notes & Action Items

Four critical functions - now broken down in a table

Agenda slightly adjusted to focus on RFP3

 

Focus on Table

• Table is broken down in four parts, following the 
• Functions.
• Question Retain or remove
• Charecteristics
• Addtional question: who are relevant parties (customers or partners)
• Who should be involved in what capacity
• Minimum scope to achieve
• Suggestion to prioritize most important characteristics in order, highest priority on the top

Minimal scope charecteristic priority 1 

 

Revisit Performance review Function 2 (Performance review)

Characteristics

• Technical expertise
• Community already reviews report, if reports not produced in time, community will make its views heard
• Disagree with technical expertice, more then just technical.
• Not just technical reviews of just technical thing -> multi-stakeholder input

 

Periodic review

Transactional review 

Performance review 

 

Reports are already produced under current contract. 

Evolution of reporting, additional reports  -> multistakeholder

Key role: enabling the communication to ensure coherence of reports, engage with community to ensure comfort level of community

 

• Characteristic that needs to go in ability to escalate 
• Reminder, what is currently done, what needs to be done
• Escalation method need to be ensured -> somebody needs to keep track in formal way.

 

• Not just tehnical experice, but also operational expertice
• Transactional review = day-to day review, based on SLA's
• Periodic review, review from to time, higher level review. 
• Periodic review, every 5 years?

 

Observation: persistent failure to meet operations performance targets -> escalation

 

What is period in periodic review? 

One year, five year?

 

Suggestion, following the chat, delete second row?

Is already done, but with need to be able to escalate.

 

Charestictic of transactional reveiw could be moved to scope and size.

 

Ultimate review is multistakeholder review

 

Maybe rename Periodic review to periodic audit.

square bracket in period review reamins there to ensure it is covered. Revisit to check.

 

Under  current contract , a whole set of deliverables, each with its own time of delivary is defined. For each of these contract review and receiving ends are defined.

 

Which key functions are relevant to global customers of partners? 

- Periodic review, relevant for both customers and partners

- Transactional, primarily global customers, except in cases of escalation (customer and globalization) 

- Assist in developing and defining, primarily global customers.

 

• Note transactional performance review includes receiving the transaction performance reports. 

• Global customers al those use IANA systems
• IANA may look at regions differently, ned to add on equal footing on the basis of geographic representation / responsibilities.

• Capture report Geographic Regions WG worth comparison and impact of different Geographic Regions .
• Customer surveys, different role then defining requirements for technical audits.
• Periodic reviews, periodic is not clear
• What is the difference between the reviews.
• Transactional review.
• Periodoc review (operational) 
• Overall Performance review -> contract renewal review.

• Revisit 3 or 4 or move to other column of this table?
• Overarching functions broken into sub-functions, define characteristics and minimum scope and size->

 

Minimal scope purpose and size. for Function 2

• Ability to escalate, under which circumstances
• What is meant by it? Who is able to escalate, under which circumstance.
• what kind of body is body to whom issues with stats are escalated.
• Escalation path can not be designed at this stage. Normal business practice.

 

Suggestion of detail that may be appropriate. Output of table

Moving forward: Similar pass over contracting review

Transcript

The transcript is available here: MeetingF2F_Session1_20Nov.doc

 

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p28vd73rk35/

The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/9a764kl5op8nahgbqkkw.mp3

Documents Presented

Functions Table Format - 19 November 2014.docx

Chat Transcript

Marika Konings:Welcome to day 2 of the CWG Stewardship F2F Meeting

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:good morning

  Grace Abuhamad:Hi erick!

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:hi grace

  matthew shears:morning all

  Allan MacGillivray:Erick - great that you could join us.  What time is it there?

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:2.00 am here in lima

  Lise Fuhr:Very early...

  Erick Iriarte Ahon::)

  Avri Doria:disagree.  i think it is a reprots review, and a review of the peiodic audits.  not specifically technical.

  Guru Acharya:+1 Elise

  matthew shears:we should look at the current deliverables in the existing contract for guidance - there are a number of reports , etc. some of which go beyond performance

  Avri Doria:as some one who missed the first conversations, this makes nto sense to me.  i will just lisen for now..  i think the peiroci reviews might be technical.  but everything else is a review of those audits.  i do not see this organizations as do deep dives on anything.  i cannot beleive we are now talking about multiple roganizations, when i do not think we need more that a minial organization.

  Robert Guerra:instead of "body" use "entity

  Robert Guerra: that could be within ICANN's structure

  Robert Guerra:suggest then also add the following characteristics - independance

  matthew shears:is the review function responsible for assessing the totaity of the IANA function deliverables?

  Greg Shatan:@Robert -- for which function? Do you need an indendent entity to review IANA's reports?

  Avri Doria:so this SLA and Technical audit is new functionality that NTIA does not already do.  correct?

  Avri Doria:ie we are already into function creep.

  Seun Ojedeji:I don't think so....at least i know those are usually done on the numbers side and i believe the same happens for names

  Avri Doria:Seun, but not by the NTIA.

  matthew shears:NTIA assesses whether or not the contract deliverables have been met right?

  Avri Doria:This is new IANA functionality, not new NTIA Stewardship functionality

  Donna Austin, RySG:Avri, I would think NTIA does some type of monitoring of performance against the contract, so I don't see how this is necessarily different

  Seun Ojedeji:Yes correct...not by NTIA as its currently done by the community

  Mary Uduma:What do we mean by technical expertise?  

  Seun Ojedeji:@Avri i don't think its a new IANA functionality because IANA does release reports and the respective communities use it as they please

  Avri Doria:These are things that Registries may rightly want done, but they are not things that NTIA does.  IT seems to be new fnctionality.

  Seun Ojedeji:so i don't think its a new thing per see

  Mary Uduma:Is technical here generic?

  Avri Doria:isn't what we are calling technical really operational.  It isn't technology per se.

  Avri Doria:it will become an army.

  matthew shears:are we confusing function 2 with the work of the IANA itself?

  Kurt Pritz:If there is a problem - there might be an ability to coach / advise / mentor - before escalation

  Avri Doria:it does seem like the creation of a function creep wish list to me.

  Avri Doria:why does IANA need daily oversight?  it needs audit os performance but not micromanagement.

  matthew shears:agree this is not what NTIA does

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to that @Avri

  Amr Elsadr:Also +1 @Avri. Day-to-day review by MS oversight will be burdensome and unnecessary.

  Avri Doria:Amr, day to day review of IANA would be burdensome.  Within IANA they need to do that.  Externally we need an audit once or twice a year of how they did.

  Avri Doria:and e need something multistakeholder to read the audits and decide if anything needs to be done about it.

  matthew shears:don't we just want the continuation of the deliverables as they are in the contract now - which include peformance review, etc.

  Amr Elsadr:On the day-to-day - within IANA, sure. But not by the steward.

  Amr Elsadr:Wouldn't the audits become publicly accessible for anyone to review? Is it the ability to escalate in response to audits that requires MS representation?

  Amr Elsadr:I'm still not entirely sure why MS is necessary vs. the direct customer.

  Amr Elsadr:@Jonathan: +1

  Avri Doria:Amr, becasue the indirect customer is as important as the 'direct' customer.

  Amr Elsadr:Not even sure the ability to escalate requires MS involvement. Perhaps the body the escalation goes to.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Avri: +1

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:This is not just a fringe function. IANA functions affect all Internet users if they are performed badly

  Guru Acharya:+1 Greg

  Desiree Miloshevic:most audits/ reports are currently published and available on iana's website

  Amr Elsadr:@Olivier: I'm not disputing that at all, but suspect the direct customers would flag any problems appropriately.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Amr: ...or shut their eyes if it was a shared problem

  Amr Elsadr:@Marika: +1

  matthew shears:does NTIA do global customer surveys?  They receive a report annually on customer service but don't undertake them...

  Desiree Miloshevic:i believe they do not do it

  Desiree Miloshevic:and we're adding something new here

  matthew shears:we really need to remain within scope of what NTIA does vis-avis performance which is to receive and review  performance reviews and reports as outlined in the current contract

  matthew shears:+ 1 Alan

  Desiree Miloshevic:+1 Alan

  Amr Elsadr:Also +1 @Alan.

  Desiree Miloshevic:I would delete customer surveys

  Avri Doria:Agree wit Alan, we are going so far beyond IANA Stewardhsip in these discussions..

  Robert Guerra:(off topic for this conversation..but worth looking at. .In case you haven't seen this yet, wanted to share details of the - The Defending Internet Freedom Act http://kelly.house.gov/sites/kelly.house.gov/files/documents/DIFA%20-%20KELLPA_035_xml.pdf , put forward by US Congressman Mike Kelly (R-PA), would see the creation of a board made up of techies and reps from the domain name world, as well as a new consortium to run the  IANA body. )

  Robert Guerra:being reported by the register and mentioned on twitter - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/20/legislation_icann_oversight_body/

  Guru Acharya:+1 Greg

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):I suggest that we move to category #3: Contracting Fuction which is something that NTIA actually does as Alan said

  Guru Acharya:Agree Diaz

  Avri Doria:" the perfect architecture is achieved when everything that can be removed is removed"

  Guru Acharya:Also, the requirement for legal personality will be determined by the Contracting Function (#3)

  Camino Manjon:+1 guru and eduardo

  Guru Acharya:yes!

  Guru Acharya:@Avri: Removing what can be removed might require the maximum number of changes. Minimalist means the minimum number of changes or the minimum weight of the resulting structure?

  Avri Doria:even on a som called miniml soltuion there is still often much that can be eliminated.

  Grace Abuhamad:Will start soon. Still on coffee break