Meeting #6 CWG RFP3 (22 December)

---

Proposed Agenda: 

1. Welcome & Roll Call

2. Discussion of MRT Functional Analysis

3. Discussion of MRT Structural Analysis

Notes and Action Items

Continuing walk-through on MRT Functional Analysis from Friday. Section 3 with questions: 

 Who determines the criteria to begin the "termination for breach" process? 

• CWG should define the criteria to begin the "termination for breach" process 
• CWG can provide best effort, but the MRT could modify contract in the future so the MRT should be the group that defines the criteria to begin the "termination for breach" process 

What are the criteria? Will they be in a document?

• Consistent pattern of not implementing IANA-specific policy. Ex: if a TLD is approved but is controversial and the IANA Functions Operator does not implement it due to pressures...

Interest in getting clarity on budget and performance reviews. Questions need to be formulated to hand-off to staff and/or NTIA. 

 Who prepares the annual review of overall IANA Functions Operator Performance?

• There should be a process that allows and is based upon the CSC to contribute to review
• MRT will have main focus on review
• Will the process be too long/large (Ex: workload of ATRT)
• The CSC should provide much of the input and the MRT reviews more holistically

Annual IANA Budget Review

• should have some budget expertise in committee members

Address and escalation issues raised by the CSC. 

• The CSC was always intended to be a first responder/help desk
• There will need to be a relationship manager between the IANA Dept. and the CSC/MRT (manager on each side)

Discussion of MRT Structural Analysis

Transcript

Transcript RFP3 22 Dec 2014.doc

Transcript RFP3 22 Dec 2014.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p298510tibt/

The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/sohqno8sp1fgkrw2jndx.mp3

Documents Presented

MRT Functional Analysis 18Dec2014.pdf

MRT Structural Analysis 121414 Draft.pdf

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer:  Welcome to the RFP3 call at 14:00 UTC

  Robert Guerra:good morning

  Yasuichi Kitamura:hi, all

  Robert Guerra:good morning - good day all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Hello

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:Goedenmiddag

  Fatima Cambronero:hello everyone

  Steve Crocker:Good morning, everyone

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:hi all

  Allan MacGillivray:Hello to all!

  Matthew Shears:Hello!

  Mark Carvell  GAC (UK Government):Hello from London!

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Greg apologizes but will be 5 minutes late

  Philip Corwin:Hello all

  Mary Uduma:Good afternoon All

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:hi Mary

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Hi CLO

  Milton Mueller:Good morning

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Greg should be dialing in now

  Robert Guerra:no sound yet on the adobe room, correct?

  Marika Konings:@Robert - yes, there is audio

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:no it works

  Robert Guerra:am not getting sound. let me restart it.

  Robert Guerra:reconnected. hearing the sound now :)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Hi!  Apologies for being late

  Matthew Shears:fully agree with Alan that we need significant clarity w/r/t operating modalities when it comes to contractual elements

  Amr Elsadr:Is the question "beginning" the process of a termination for breach the same as who makes the final decision? The question being posed seems to involve initiation of the process, not who makes the final decision.

  Robert Guerra:in terms of criteria. we need to define now i think. At least some of the key aspects.  - i think some key criteria need to be defined now. Perhaps a super majority needed of involved organizations?

  Matthew Shears:I think we discussed that the critieria should be defined as a part of this process

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Surely the MRT should run the process, but the criteria need to be established in consultation with the wider community

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:An open process

  Steve Crocker:The model being discussed here is defining the criteria for what IANA does and then instituting a mechanism for reviewing whether the IANA function operator meets that criteria.  What mechanism is proposed for adjusting the criteria if and when the needs change?

  Milton Mueller:good question steve, but I think we need to answer the first question first

  Milton Mueller:(i.e., what are the criteria?)

  Milton Mueller:Unilateral right to amend, anyone?

  Donna Austin, RySG:I think the MRT decides, but the criteria is determined as Martin suggests, in consultation with the community.

  Brenden Kuerbis:If we agree on that in principle, then we shoud sh=pend time defining consultation process

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Brenden:  yes, I think so

  Milton Mueller:anti-lope. ewww, than pun has horns

  Donna Austin, RySG:Would any consultation occur with the IANA Dept, itself, or ICANN as the otherparty to the conract?

  Robert Guerra:In terms of process - should be there be prior notifications of non implmentation, and if no corrective action taken , then proceed to revoke / not renew

  Robert Guerra:more genrally - should there be a prior notification stage?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Robert:  +1

  Steve Crocker:The IANA operator should not have anything to say one way or the other about the allocation of specific domain names.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Alan, agree on the distinction on IANA Dept. and ICANN

  Grace Abuhamad:Comments, including NCSG comments, are posted here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Milton:  surely that can also happen without vertical implementation?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:For gtlds, they would give the instruction

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):If we do not trust ICANN to separate policy from IANA, we should get off the fence and say that ICANN should not be the operator from the start.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:But in that case, the icann gtld policy implemetation is at fault.

  Milton Mueller:some of us did say that, Alan

  Avri Doria:Steve, how is a contradictory assignment by IETF and ICANN to reserved name lists or for protocol usage handled by IANA.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:It would be a problem if they passed the instruction to the IANA [company / directorate] it then becomes IANA operator problem

  Steve Crocker:Avri, you're positing a conflict between IETF and ICANN as if it this is a certainty.  I think that needs to be examined carefully.  In any case, it's not an IANA function issue. 

  Milton Mueller:ideally, the appeals process should handle this problem I am talking about more efficiently than breach proceedings. But if there are multiple appeals along these lines, you need to look at another IANA operator

  Steve Crocker:If you put the IANA operator in the position of determining whether it should or should not accept an entry that comes through the appropriate channels, you're putting the IANA function into the position of dealing with policy and sensitive value judgments.  That's exactlky what the IANA function should NOT be doing.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Given the CWG reluctance to have the MRT (or anyone) monitor that IANA follows policy, I find it amazing that we are willing to start monitoring ICANN in its non-IANA functions.

  Milton Mueller:Alan, this is a misrepresentation of what we are talking about

  Milton Mueller:Agree, Steve C., we do not want the IANA to do that at all. We are talking about what happens if it does start to do that

  Matthew Shears:There sould be a process that allows and is based upon the CSC to contribute to review

  Avri Doria:Steve, since current ICANN and IETF policy/processes ccan change these directories, and each has its own method of asking for a legitimate update, how is this conflict (only mildly hypothetical) handled? How would it be handled in the future?  just one of those question that needs to be answered, especially as part of any test of the system (yes more rfp4)

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Greg - hands

  Steve Crocker:The main lines of authority between the IETF and ICANN re allocation of names are moderately well specified.  The various boundary conditions and emergent issues aare dealt with by consultation  betqeen the two groups.

  Avri Doria:BTW, I am not thinking the question i posed is an MRT issue, but a solution issue.

  Matthew Shears:The CSC should provide much of the input and the MRT reviews more holistically

  Donna Austin, RySG:I think there will be an intial period of heavy workload to set up processes etc. for first time. Once that is done it should be a reasonably steady state.

  Avri Doria:But I do think it could become a review issue, if, for example, it became apparent that IANA repsonided in an unfavorable ways to names process based changes to the registries by prefereing IETF process based changes.

  Milton Mueller:good point, Avri

  Kurt Pritz:Sorry for this late comment on budget: The contract to provide IANA services is a “no-cost” contract, so the MRT oversight of IANA does not have a “direct” relationship with the budget.  Nonetheless, the MRT could come to a conclusion that ICANN is over/under spending. On a year-to-year basis the MRT could decide to energize a budget review. Mechanics for disagreeing with ICANN on the budget should use the already open, public ICANN budget review process. We should use processes already in place whenever we can.

  Matthew Shears:What will the MRT do to address an escalated issue?  What are its powers in that respect?

  Milton Mueller:Kurt: agree, and I think (controversially, I know) that there should be no requirement for IANA services to remain "no cost" which actually means HIDDEN cost,non transparent cost

  Donna Austin, RySG:for escalation, there must be registry representation

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Donna:  agree

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:and significant representation

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I'd be worried if the contract could be terminated if the registries were strongly opposed

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Greg, I don't disagree

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:fine, Greg

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes agree @greg

  Allan MacGillivray:@Greg - that's certainly how I see it.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Malcolm:  I'd like to know what that range of concerns

  Donna Austin, RySG:The CSC has the relationship with the customers, if a community member is concerned  about performance it could be raised directly with the RT

  Donna Austin, RySG:directly with the MRT, not RT

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Poor performance due to lack of funding may not be resolvable by CSC>

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Greg, it is an edge case until it happens. Then it is central.

  Philip Corwin:Must depart/bye all

  Kurt Pritz:Most breaches / escalations will have to do with not meeting SLAs, e.g., time to perform a root zone management change. These should be essentially “self-reporting” as IANA has to report these statistics. There should be clear criteria for escalation, e.g., so many departures from the SLAs or an average turn-around time greater than the standard. These would automatically create a corrective action requirement. Therefore, there should be few or no “emergencies” for the MRT.  The oversight function (MRT / CSC) can look the sum of these instances on a regular, non-emergency basis to determine if a next escalation step is necessary.

  Brenden Kuerbis:@Kurt, MM - Would the language in current IANA functions contract (adjusted to reflect MRT) concerning cost, transperency, fee structures be adequate? I.e., section B.2

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree@greg re obligations/ mandate

  Donna Austin, RySG:There will need to be a relationship manager between the IANA Dept. and the CSC/MRT

  Donna Austin, RySG:Each side

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:and open documentation?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Transcriptions and public documents

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:open for all to see

  Amr Elsadr:@Martin: +1. + live streaming of meetings.

  Matthew Shears:+ 1 on transparency, etc.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Bertrand:  not Board-like.  A facilitator

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Agree should not function on its own

  Brenden Kuerbis:ICG-like

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Amr - I'm not so sure live streaming is necessary, there will be costs associated and I think these should be minimised, so in my mind notes from meetings are fine.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Brenden:  yes, I think so

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Cost of streaming is minimal. Not doing it ends up operating in camera.

  Amr Elsadr:@Donna: At a minimum, I would hope for archived mp3 recordings of meetings. I would prefer live audio stream, although I am not familiar with the costs involved. I don't think we're expecting an overwhelmingly large number of calls that will require this, are we?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Greg:  comments and consult before breach: yes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree @alan transparency is key

  Donna Austin, RySG: @Alan, I don't have a problem with in-camera so long as minutes follow. Transparency can be met in more than one manner.

  Bertrand:@Alan: there is a difference between making decision when there is no consensus and a decision is really needed and being a self-standing body that feels it is on its own representative of the community

  Amr Elsadr:@Milton: +1

  Matthew Shears:yes + 1 Milton

  Amr Elsadr:If we replicate repersentation in IANA of policy development representation in ICANN, then we're effectively nullifying the features of seprability.

  Bertrand:experience proves that any gathering of ICANNers even elsewhere is an opportunity for them to re-argue internal ICANN discussions :-) the MRT will not be different.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I think the fact that it is a decision making body it has significant power. Therefore those who might be affected will want a clear voice

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:The risk of process capture needs to ba addressed:  hence why we need visibility of what is going on

  Milton Mueller:+1 Bertrand

  Bertrand:would such an appeal be only procedural or could an independent review modify the decision of the MRT? for instance for a decision of changing tthe operator.

  Bertrand:Risk of infinite recursion of appeals here

  Avri Doria:as the function increases, the MRT discussion comes closer to reintroucing the problems of the infinite regress of accountability.

  Donna Austin, RySG:So, ICANN could appeal a decision to appoint another operator.

  Bertrand:@donna: :-)

  Milton Mueller:yes, infinite regress is to be avoided

  Bertrand:Aren't we getting more and more in the direction of a very permanent MRT body? rather than a review Team with very limited functions at specific times.

  Bertrand:note limited, sorry, rather specified

  Bertrand:but becoming more and more a new Board

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Last 15 minutes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:exactly greg but  even Regional Alta. can be managed as ALAC has shown :-)

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hands

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Greg: i understand the arguments for regional representation, but in some cases this is challenging because of the way the IANN regions are organised. There are only a handful of ccTLD registries in North America for example.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Alan G stepped in for AP regional rep/ membership recent

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:y the key is effectiveness

  Steve Crocker:What about a requirement that the representatives actually understand the IANA function?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:as Alan is outlining now

  Fatima Cambronero:+1 @Steve + regional diversity

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Steve, how do you demonstrate such an understanding?

  Milton Mueller:Yay Steve!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed @steve effectiveness would I trust assume/require key criteria

  Suzanne Woolf:+1 Steve, I have wondered about this myself.

  mary Uduma:Good question Steve

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):We rarely limit speaking rights based on actually understanding the subject. Why here?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Ratholes are far more fun...

  Brenden Kuerbis:Horse before the cart

  Bertrand:@Steve: understanding an issue has never been a pre-requirement in any policy discussion I have ever witnessed (in ICANN or elsewhere) :-)

  Brenden Kuerbis:Oops, sorry.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Why not just stop now!  5 whole minutes free.

  Matthew Shears:We are going to hve to assume that the entities placing persons on the MRT would select the right and knowedgeable inidividuals

  Avri Doria:or we can make them take a test?   just kiddling, but that is where this rat hole leads.

  Suzanne Woolf:@matthew, the community may need to provide some guidance on that though. I'm comfortable with RSSAC, for example, doing exactly that. Some other groups might need help.

  Milton Mueller:agree with need for term liits

  Milton Mueller:limits

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):COncept on onely 1 member per group and staggered seems to relate to drinking habits.

  Brenden Kuerbis:IMO, term limits should not exceed the total contractual period.

  Milton Mueller:agree with synching terms with RFP cycles

  Matthew Shears:yes

  mary Uduma:I think a single term would be good to creat opportunities for other s to participate

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes

  Fatima Cambronero:terms limits and renewal by parts of its members

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:my yes was to synch

  Avri Doria:i am sort of concerned with how the MRT has become a standing committee, that has lots of repsonsiblities and meets frequently. 

  Bertrand:thanks Avri

  Bertrand:it is becoming a permanent, Board-like, decision-making and representative body.

  Avri Doria:i do like that we are having more moments of people who never agree, admitting they agree. that is a good sign.

  Bertrand:what do you mean "never agree" ? ;-)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Alan:  you also do not want there to be a standing clique of members

  mary Uduma:@Martin + one

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Martin, yes, but also no rule that says that as soon as you understand what is going on, you need to leave.

  Matthew Shears:maybe we should be looking at an MRT that is a CSC+ , rather than creating a large separate Board-like entity and would be more organizationally coherent

  Bertrand:hard not to find a good rationale to HAVE to come to the ICANN meetings :-)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Matthew:  looks a better approach

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:But as the same old people keeping on - that really is nightmare

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Anyone new is then considered as the poor newbe who just doesn't understand

  Robert Guerra:Reminder that RFP 4 call is Dec 23 / 1400 UTC. Details and proposed agena posted on main cwg list

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:seasons greetings    bye

  Allan MacGillivray:Yes - best of the season to all.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Happy Christmas to all!

  Robert Guerra:bye all

  Matthew Shears:thanks all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye and happy holiday

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Bye

  Milton Mueller:bye all

  Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Merry Christmas.

  Maarten Simon, SIDN:bye

  Avri Doria:bye, happiness all.

  Brenden Kuerbis:Thanks Greg, happy holidays all

  Bertrand:bye all

  mary Uduma:Bye All

  Fatima Cambronero:thanks all. Bye and Merry Christmas and happy holidys

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:bye

  Greg Shatan:Goodbye all