Meeting #10 CWG RFP3 (16 January)

---

Agenda: 

1. Return to reviewing the CSC Structural Analysis, which can be found in Google Drive at the following link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kEMsYy6ABffka7G1iONO7VzTRlD4UwB0n05UdV8pAjA/edit?usp=sharing

2.  Consider the areas of divergence from the surveys (as opposed to areas of convergence, which were explored over the weekend).  I will recirculate those emails shortly.

3. Review Section 3 of the Draft Proposal with an eye toward preparing a revised version for discussion in Singapore.  A copy of Section 3 is attached.

 

Notes: 

Goal today is to drill down on concept on customer standing committee

 

Review of CSC Structural Analysis

Entity Status of CSC // Relationship to ICANN

• Communities sign on to recognize the CSC <--> and ICANN will need to recognize them
• Staffan Jonson: Could use Avri's idea of having an IETF or ISOC affiliation so as to keep the CSC limited to technical and operational oversight
• IETF is an "activity" of ISOC -- the 4th step in IETF appeals process is ISOC. So IETF is independent, but lives under the ISOC umbrella. 
• Could CSC "hang under" ICANN? Could ICANN be the umbrella for CSC? Yes, if well defined. 
• Are we assuming that the role that which is based in the document circulated for this call?
• Staffan Jonson: The role of CSC was to represent Registries and IANA Functions Operator. In that case, the CSC doesn't need to be legally recognized. It could be like any other organization of ICANN
• Greg Shatan: CSC needs to be more inclusive of other stakeholders
• The group that is making the decision for separability is essentially part of the group that the would separate from

Note: Tying definitions to "IANA Functions Operator" instead of "ICANN" is more future proof

 

Relationship to MRT

• The CSC doesn't escalate problems itself --> it goes to MRT
• Role and composition are not the same thins. The role of the mission (and the
• Avri Doria (personal): support the idea of the CSC moving if the ICANN. In IETF model, the only relation is for appeals. Should consider talking to the experts who set up this structure
• Martin Boyle: CSC should respond to the multi-stakeholder community and to the customers. Only to MRT if we want to escalate
• Stephanie Duchesneau: clarify the language of "takes direction from" --->  directions should be clarified, presumably the CSC responsibilities which will include both regular monitor duties and addressing particular issues that were flagged by customers. Both of these types of responsibilities should be set forth in some governing documents (charter?) which is what it should be taking directions form.
• Greg: concerned that the CSC will become "cartel-like" ie less multistakeholder and transparent. We need to control for this. 
• Martin Boyle: we are looking to raise issue of concern to the supplier... Cartel aspect comes in because we could fire the operator if we do something the group 
• Inclusion of experts lessens the cartel aspect -- experts can raise alarms
• Need to look at function before structure
• CSC is similar to a Level 1 Helpdesk (power to talk and power to act)
• Avri Doria: Power to not act, or refusal to act (in this case of a bad policy for example)
• Stephanie Duchesneau: registries may not have that incentive. 
• Donna Austin: ccTLD have a long relationship with IANA and has set out processes for monitoring... Can someone from ccTLD community speak to this?
• Bernie Turcotte: was the first to set up relationship with ccTLDs and IANA. Eventually became very good relationship. Hope that the CSC will have a similar concept. 
• Staffan Jonson and Martin Boyle agree that that the IANA performance is good/satisfactory today.
• Separation between formulating policy and overviewing policy is, and should be the main separation between CSC and MRT
• Martin Boyle: CSC should be more in communicator position rather than enforcer

Organizational Documentation (Charter, etc.)

• Why a Charter for CSC? Do you mean terms of reference and modus operandi?
• Charter = Terms of Reference + Modus Operandi
• Perhaps add an addendum to clarify what they definition is

 

Transparency

(all generally agree)

 

Two different approaches: 

- IANA Observer on the call

- Questions formulated to IANA

At a minimum, should have a more open line of communication with

 

Humor // Good lines: 

·  Lawyers peel onions and make OTHERS cry. 

 

Action Items

All to review the CSC Structural Analysis, which can be found in Google Drive at the following link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kEMsYy6ABffka7G1iONO7VzTRlD4UwB0n05UdV8pAjA/edit?usp=sharing

Transcript

Transcript RFP3 16 Jan.doc

Transcript RFP3 16 Jan.pdf

 

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4vik3iuyp8/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rfp3-16jan15-en.mp3

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer:Good day All!  Welcome to the RFP3 call January 16 at 14:00 UTC.

  Gary Campbell:Hi Brenda

  Brenda Brewer:Hello Gary

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):¡Hola a todos!

  Robert Guerra:Hi all

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):Hi, all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Hi all

  Staffan Jonson:Hello all

  Seun Ojedeji:Hello everyone

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Please Jaap

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Mind you Avri, you are very quiet

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Could you up the gain?  Or speak closer

  Avri Doria:so maybe when i lowered it i lowered it too much.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I could hardly hear you

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Even with my volume up

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Has the sound died - nothing on brigde or adobe

  Avri Doria:i have raised the gain.

  Grace Abuhamad:Hi all -- link to google doc that we are viewing is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kEMsYy6ABffka7G1iONO7VzTRlD4UwB0n05UdV8pAjA/edit?usp=sharing

  Brenden Kuerbis:I can hear Grace

  Gary Campbell:Hearing you

  Robert Guerra:there are several ccTLD's that aren't in the CCNSO..

  Robert Guerra:seems we are talking about a transition implication (RFP4) that we need to define here. let's try, if possible, to define how this changes the existing arrangement - and who would be the new "entity"

  Sivasubramanian M:CSC:   If the CSC to include Registries and Registrars among others, how is to be decided who among the Ry group gets nominated? Would it also include smaller Registries?  Would the ccTLD representatives come only fromt the most powerful ccTLDs?  Would the selection of members go through a NOMCOM like process at least to the extent of a requirement of a sort of a No Objection from NomCom?  Also, if there is a less than proportionate representation to ALAC, and if that smaller group does not agree to the observations of the CSC, how would it find expression to its relatively minor voice?  Or, is it completely unnecessary to worry about balancing the CSC?  The trend in thinking is to be create the CSC more as a small group of cutomers with unfettered access,  so no need of a balance, all the balance would happen at the rest of the IANA processes / existing ICANN structures?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Avri - all good for audio

  Staffan Jonson:Well it works in cooperation with ISOC

  Robert Guerra:quick question - are are going through the analysis /the doc, and then going through with some constructive discussion?

  Robert Guerra:if IETF can work indepedantly under ISOC, could CSC use that as a tempate to work under ICANN? What related dependencies - accountability, etc - are needed? How do folks feel on this? Some seem to have expressed that values of - seperability, accountability really need to be developped further regardless

  Robert Guerra:+1 martin

  John Poole:+1 Martin

  Staffan Jonson:Robert: Exactly!

  Staffan Jonson:In order to further emphasis the role of CSC as an operational organization limited to technical management, Avris idea from before christmas that a similar solution today working between IETF and ISOC also could be applied in the relation of CSC and MRT. To look further into this is a good scoope for the Legal advice currently underway.

  Staffan Jonson:Agree to some extent. Still: the legality of it is still worth looking into

  Staffan Jonson:This has nothing wit trust of ICANN board - or not - to do.

  Staffan Jonson:This idea is to isolate CSC:s main function, to oversee technical operation, protecting it from capture of any kind.

  Robert Guerra:Tying definitions to the "iana operator" i believe if more "future proof"

  Robert Guerra:(is more i mean)

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):But at a future separation from the IFO (whoever that is at the time), the issue of trust is still there. When the NEW IFO is selected, it moves, but it is the lead-up and transition that I am referring to.

  John Poole:The IANA Contract should require the IANA functions operator--whoever that is--to have a CSC

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):But the future case of separability will be because you have lost faith in that IFO.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I didn't say otherwise Greg

  Seun Ojedeji:LOST AUDIO

  Robert Guerra:lost audio too

  Robert Guerra:stephanie was speaking and audio was dropped

  Grace Abuhamad:Is your audio still dropped? We just had a long silent pause

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):will do

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 to Greg - I was under the impression the CSC's remit was limited to examining service level agreements

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):i think that take directions should be clarified, presumably the CSC responsibilities which will include both regular monitor duties and addressing particular issues that were flagged by customers. Both of these types of responsibilities should be set forth in some governing documents (charter?) which is what it should be taking directions form.

  Staffan Jonson:Thank You for expressing this concern for CSC becoming a cartel etc. straight out. It increase understanding. I’d never considered it. It is a good point.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Alan, the gTLD relationship is different to the ccTLDs agreed, but most of the relationship issues are outside of the 'IANA' in that contracts are signed prior to TLD being delegated.

  Donna Austin, RySG:any policies that are not being followed post-delegation are tied to a contract and can be addressed through compliance

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Donna, yes, but they are also subject to periodic re-negotiation, fee changes, RSEP, etc.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Alan, I don't see those issues as related to the IANA function

  Staffan Jonson:Donna +1

  Staffan Jonson:Thank You for expressing this concern for CSC becoming a cartel etc. straight out. It increase understanding. I’d never considered it. It is a good point. However,I’m not sure it could be a problem. At least not I CSC, IF we define the overview task for the CSC as only technical, with the yes-no-answer. This design of CSC would avoid any policy.

  Staffan Jonson:According to Frankfurt, Innovation would be solely in MRT

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Donna, they are completely UNrelated in theory. The question is can motivations cross that boundary.. In the most extreme case, can the implicit statement be "lower fees or we will take IANA away from you". Certainly tempered and possibly completely controlled by the ccTLD presumably having to agree.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:no sound

  Grace Abuhamad:long silence @ Bernie

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Alan: the gTLDs have a contract with ICANN which makes it more difficult, I believe, for the gTLDs to have too much power in the sense you suspect.

  Greg Shatan:Sorry --  I was on mute then.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Level 1 is not much of a power , its simply to power to be able to talk to IANA

  Seun Ojedeji:Do we need to clarify what those issues are

  Avri Doria:and the power to not talk and just let something slip through.

  Seun Ojedeji:it seem CSC is starting to wield more powers that may make us have to relook the composition of CSC

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Donna. Agreed, but looking at worst case alternatives and trying to make sure that this structure is not subject to any sort of scrutiny in these kinds of cases.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):If it were only gTLDs, I don't think we could agaid these kinds of questions. With ccTLDs, the group will have defense

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Survey supported strongly CSC talking to IANA coupled with the concept of resolving issues at the lowest possible level

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):agaid=avoid

  Donna Austin, RySG:Registries are ultimately going to be concerned with the security and stability of the DNS and a reliability of service from IANA.

  Staffan Jonson:Well I’d like to argue for defining CSC in a very narrow role for CSC, just because it is the front line, real time response to operational problems, and just because it should be ‘untainted’ from policy. Purely monitoring. CSC would under such definition very little power to act by own merits.  

  Greg Shatan:I've lost my audio ---dialing back in.

  Greg Shatan:Stephanie go ahead

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Avri  Inaction where action is needed?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): I support Avri regarding our need to guard against deliberate inaction on issues that they do not favour.

  Avri Doria:i am only talking about experts being there to guard against this.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:+1 Donna

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):i think this can also be accounted for in the fact that a lot of functions of the CSC will be regular ones and conducted transparently

  Seun Ojedeji:I agree with Donna on the role of CSC...which is monitoring performance

  John Poole:+1 Donna

  Avri Doria:adding an expert or 3 to a CSC does not make it more complicated, just adds a few other eyes and voices.

  Greg Shatan:Someone needs to mute

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Grace can we mute that line

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Someone in the bath?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Donna, +1. Worry that Rys could be accused of something more of an issue than their really doing it.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):thanks avri - i am not opposing that, was speaking to the more general "cartel" issue raised

  Donna Austin, RySG:thanks Bernie

  Bart Boswinkel:In Principle all ccTLD Regional Organizations and ccNSO have regular meetings, it is not limited to CENTR

  Bart Boswinkel:meetigs with IANA Operator staff

  Allan MacGillivray:I would also add that there is a 'standing slot' for someone from IANA, usually Kim Davies, to speak and answer questions at the ccNSO meetings held in conjunction with ICANN F2F meetings.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Grace in notes - eventually become very good

  Seun Ojedeji:All i expect CSC will be doing is monitor performance based on specific indicators as defined in the SLA. So i will expect that CSC would discuss with IANA only on when they observe that they are below the agreed level of performance and when/if IANA operator refuse to comply after specific timeline/reminder notice to IANA operator , they escalate to MRT

  Grace Abuhamad:@Bernie did you mean that for performance or for the relationship between IANA and ccTLDs?

  Staffan Jonson:Martin: Yes, Separation between formulating policy and overviewing policy is, and should be the main separation between CSC and MRT

  Staffan Jonson:Seaun: Yes

  Seun Ojedeji:While that is fine, i will say review of SLA should not only be the sole role of CSC

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:As part of the monthly reports IANA provides is a non-public detailed issues report which currently goes to the NTIA. The group has to decide if the CSC should bge able to chat with IANA about these specific issues if any

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):GREAT LINE: Lawyers peel onions and make OTHERS cry. Needed to capture that!

  Greg Shatan:@Alan - Thanks... :-)

  Donna Austin, RySG:Good points Martin

  Seun Ojedeji:IMO future improvements on the SLA needs to be logged by CSC but agreed to by the body beyound CSC; even though CSC would provide the improvement recommendations it should not be the one that decides to serve them to IANA operator.

  John Poole:+1 Martin

  Greg Shatan:@Martin,  I hope we've had others good lines.... :-)

  Avri Doria:Charter = TOR + methods

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Thanks Wipipedia!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:TOR+Modus operandi

  Staffan Jonson:I can understand marching orders ;)

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Seun +1 on SLA

  Seun Ojedeji:I just lost audio

  Brenden Kuerbis:I assume that in the numbers proposal NRO is updated in order to ensure that potential improvements become part of upcoming contract negotiation? So the analog here would be notifying MRT.

  Seun Ojedeji:I will type here....my point is that i also have similar understanding but i just like to clarify Alan's point about CSC doing beyound just monitoring performance

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Dropped off but back now.

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay i am back

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:14 minutes to the top of the hour

  Sivasubramanian M:nuetral observatio related to technical efficiency etc. could be implemented without procedural bottlenecks, but these observations need to be somewhat transparent, enough to convince ICANN that the improvements / minor changes effected based on CSC observations are neutral

  Sivasubramanian M:nuetral obeservations...

  Donna Austin, RySG:Agreee that it makes sense that the primary customers that have the relationship with IANA to be able to identify new service leverls that are considered necessary.

  Sivasubramanian M:That is because,  "Customers" - businesses are used to swift and efficient action, which is not so characteristic of a Pubic origanization or Govenrment

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay i think i agree with that then @Alan....the main point about who implements not staying with CSC is what i like to clarify

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Alan  - Chuck did mention the conflict of interest requirements this last weekend

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Real issues that happened in the last month

  Allan MacGillivray:@Alan - an excellent suggestion!

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Conrad is always reading the Notes

  Robert Guerra:jaap has done that in the past . he's not from iana, but knows them well

  Sivasubramanian M:An IANA person, as a Resource Person / Observerser, yes

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to bringing in an IANA person

  Robert Guerra:we should get iana person to answer specific questions

  Seun Ojedeji:I think IANA person joining all calls is useful

  Seun Ojedeji:rfp3 call

  Sivasubramanian M:Appoint an observer, as for an IANA nominee particualrly with expertise on technical matters

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:available if requested would seem to make more sense

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):I don't think we have answered the question of where do the now confidential reports to NTIA go.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Alan, to NTIA?

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):agree w/ bernie and robert

  Sivasubramanian M:as for,   corrected as "ask for"

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):I can answer some specific questions, yes

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Alan - reports after the transition

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):But cannot speak for IANA

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1 Robert

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Bernie. I thought somneone had said there wereconf reports to NTIA. Perhaps to ICANN. But regardless, the question not yet addressed.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:ok

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Grace has her hand up

  Seun Ojedeji:wow! thats late for me @Grace i presume you know why ;-)

  Robert Guerra:Good weekend all!

  Seun Ojedeji:thanks and bye

  Allan MacGillivray:Grace - will a calendar invitation for Monday's call be sent out?

  Robert Guerra:url for google doc?

  Robert Guerra:please include in minutes

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye

  Staffan Jonson:I added to also make the budget public, on order to avoid incentives. Yes, Thank You all for a constructive meeting,

  Staffan Jonson:I mean thank you all!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:bye all and thank you

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):bye all

  Sivasubramanian M:Bye everyone

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):By all

  Brenden Kuerbis:thx bye all

  Greg Shatan:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kEMsYy6ABffka7G1iONO7VzTRlD4UwB0n05UdV8pAjA/edit?usp=sharing

  Greg Shatan:Goodbye all.