Way Forward for RFP 4 (13:45 - 15:25 local time)

Notes & Action Items

Significant relevant accountability mechanisms built into proposed structure

Need to select a rapporteur/coordinator for RFP4

Chair notes that, of the 3 Coordinators to date, 2 of them are "partcipants" (so, please volunteer!)

Return to flow charts (discussed in RFP3 morning sessions)

presentation by Marika (staff)

• Characteristics of entities
• Main Functions
• Periodic Operational Review
• Entering into Contract
• Periodic Performance Review

Questions/Comments: 

• Who is IANA here? IANA is the operator
• Periodic Operational Review -- point on escalation to be shown in chart
• Periodic Performane Review -- undirectional or bidirectional process
• Entering into Contact -- Change "ICANN" to "IANA"
• Contention of the word "periodic" in Registry --- so will remove this (it's an operational review)
• "solicit imput/feedback  through consultation"
• This document could lead to perception that we would RFP the initial contract
• Group needs to tread cautiously regarding suggesting that any decisions has been taken out of context
• Goal is to maintain status quo but in new format
• RFP 4  -- Transition Implications
• Siva has volunteered to serve but could use a co-coordinator
• Robert Guerra has volunteered

Transcript

The transcript is available here: MeetingF2F_Session3_20Nov.doc

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1v1ouiljo2/

The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/ut56rexnu9ygg6dr07v6.mp3

Documents Presented

Flowchart updated.pdf

IANA Transition Flow Chart - version 1.2 - 20 November 2014.pdf

Chat Transcript

Grace Abuhamad:BREAK FOR LUNCH

  Sivasubramanian M:The agenda says 12 - 1 UTC +1 Lunch,  I still don't have audio,  has the meeting started?

  Marika Konings:Hi Sivasubramanian, the meeting is scheduled to start shortly (people are just coming back from lunch)

  Sivasubramanian M:Thanks Marika

  Marika Konings:The agenda has been slightly modified, I'll update it now on the right side

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:finally made part of the meeting

  Graeme Bunton:Welcome Cheryl, getting going again in about 10 mins

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr::-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:well a I am in #4 I figured extra effort required despite just f

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:lying back home

  Marika Konings:#4 still needs a rapporteur, hint, hint ;-)

  Sivasubramanian M:Cheryl Did you have difficulty being made part of the meeting ?  !!!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Ingot asked for lead on #5 I thou hy

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:but In am AV

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry typing in the dark

  Wale Bakare:Hi, audio seems not working

  Marika Konings:@Wale - we have not started yet

  Grace Abuhamad:Have not started yet

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:no Siva I have been travelling and at a Board retreat

  Grace Abuhamad:@marika -- jinx

  Marika Konings::-)

  Wale Bakare:Thanks @Marika

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Cheryl   Y

  Sivasubramanian M:You were typing in the dark, so what you said sounded misleading suprising "finally made part of the meeting" as if someone wouldn't make you a part of this meeting !!!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:no midnight here been home less than an our and actually in the dark @Siva :-)

  Sivasubramanian M:I would like to volunteer to be the coordinator

  Sivasubramanian M:If it is not required to attend the meetings in person

  Grace Abuhamad:Uploading document to the Wiki now

  Amr Elsadr:@Eduardo: Good catch.

  matthew shears:even performance reviw may not be periodic especially if there are ad hoc issues that arise relating to performance that are escalted

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:hmmm -- it looks like the local network is unstable hence the screen share goes offline every now and then

  Amr Elsadr:@Paul: +1

  Amr Elsadr:I can see why reviews for contract renewal are not really necessary provided that 1. There are periodic reviews taking place regardless and 2. An ad-hoc review can be triggered for contractual compliance or other reasons.

  Guru Acharya:+1 Malcolm +1 Matthew

  Amr Elsadr:In my last msg, I meant periodic reviews associated with contract renewals.

  Guru Acharya:Agree with Malcolm

  Seun Ojedeji:It looks like we have made up our mind about contracting route.

  Donna Austin, RySG:Marika, what was your suggested language?

  Marika Konings:@Donna - Contract Renewal Process, which in my mind leaves both options (renewal with RFP or without RFP) open

  Seun Ojedeji:I would have thought looking at that as an option will be ideal

  matthew shears:@ marika - why not just say "contracting process"

  Guru Acharya:Yes. Contract Renewal Process suggests a presumption of renewal which we havent agreed on.

  Donna Austin, RySG:so contracting process probably works okay

  Eduardo Diaz - ALAC:in 2015 we have a contract delegation, after that there migth be re-delegations (if necessary)

  Guru Acharya:+1 Malcolm

  matthew shears:we should not be prejudging the process down the road so woud prefer "contracting process"

  Marika Konings:Does renewing imply that it is with the same entity? My assumption was that renewal could also mean renewing it with another operator, but happy to take guidance here from native speakers :-)

  Jonathan Robinson:IMO - Renew is by definition with the same entity

  Camino Manjon:and rebid, with a new one

  Marika Konings:OK, I can update it to contracting

  Greg Shatan:Rebid = possibility of a new one, but the existing one could win the bid....

  Guru Acharya:RFP does not send the wrong signal. It sends the right signal.

  Kurt Pritz:It is poor practice to change the operator AND the oversight mechanism at the same time. Both moves propose a risk. Operations managers change one part of the operation (the overseer in this case) and AFTER that is working correctly, then consider whether to change the operator.

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Kurt +1

  Sivasubramanian M:It would throw everything into chaos if we change the Operator and the oversight at the sametime.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Olivier--the contract will be with ICANN as the provider of the IANA function, I don't think IANA can enter into a contract.

  joerg Schweiger:+ 1 Malcolm

  Guru Acharya:+1 Malcolm

  Sivasubramanian M:It is wise not to think of changing ICANN as the IANA operator, and is is also important not to make any changes in any operational arrangments that ICANN might have at the moment for technical operations.

  Eduardo Diaz - ALAC:5. I just want to point out that these slides will be accompanied with a narrative (I hope) that can be used to explain what and RFP means within the context of the transition

  Guru Acharya:+1 Diaz

  Allan MacGillivray:@Eduardo - the narrative will not be domne for days.  These will be well around the world by then, if they are not already.

  Wale Bakare:Page 4 ( Entering into Contract),  the Review Comments should come before Publish proposal

  Wale Bakare:Contract

  Marika Konings:@Walel - input is provided before the publication of proposed contract and then feedback is solicited on the proposed contract (following which comments are reviewed and proposed contract updated as needed)

  Eduardo Diaz - ALAC:@Allan: if that is the case thne the RFP words should be taken out as recommended. If thses slides are seen without any supporting narrative are going to create all kind of speculations anyhow. The first one that I can foresee is where are these group  going to reside.

  Wale Bakare:Yes. But i would suggest Publish proposal contract should be  reviewed and then goes into implement decisions of ICANN

  Sivasubramanian M:Why do we set the time frame for periodic review as once in 5 years or once in 10 years? Why not once every 2 years or 3 years ?

  Seun Ojedeji:and that is what we should avoid

  Seun Ojedeji:This now makes me worry of capture concerns from this contracting entity

  Seun Ojedeji:the entracting role needs to be unattractive as much as possible...infact all the commitees needs to be

  Seun Ojedeji:but once we start creating the impression of RFP et all then we open up another hole of oversight by the end of the initial term

  Amr Elsadr:We could draw straws!! :)

  Greg Shatan:Siva, we have set any particular period for periodic review.  However, the existing IANA contract has particular periods in them for such reviews.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Greg you mean we have not

  Robert Guerra:on transition implications - happy to be involved. However not sure if will have the time to co- chair with others

  Sivasubramanian M:Thanks Greg

  Greg Shatan:@Seun, your are correct  -- have "not" set

  Greg Shatan:@Robert.  It hardly takes any time at all.  :-)

  Seun Ojedeji:whats the difference between contracting entity and body?

  Seun Ojedeji:it sounds as no differencee to me

  Seun Ojedeji:I would really suggest that every occurence of contracting entity is replaced with "contracting entity/MOU entity" because that will basically somewhat provide the options. In any case i will like to say we really need to provide all the options to the community and not just presenting one option route

  Wale Bakare:@Seun, i would think entity require bylaw as a distinction to body, although am no a lawyer

  Seun Ojedeji:@Wale, not sure i got that?

  Sivasubramanian M:It is not out of scope.  There are variations between the way ccTLDs and gTLDs operate, which places a strain on the IANA operations. So we may at least need to draw up at least a wish list of harmonization of the policies at least to a degree where the IANA wouldn;t be stressed by the differences

  Sivasubramanian M:That was on Desiree's point on possible changes in policy

  Desiree Miloshevic:@Sivas - it's out of scope for RFP4 according to majority here

  Sivasubramanian M:For e.g  Just thinking aloud, ccTLDs may not be a full part of ICANN, but could go though a common method of interaction with IANA  

  Sivasubramanian M:And is the WG amused merely because it is so out of scope

  Sivasubramanian M:Or because it is impossible ot deal with ccTLDs, impossible to get them to bring them to a common ground?