Subgroup Members:  Avri Doria, Alice Jansen, Allan MacGillivray, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fatima Cambronero, Greg Shatan, Guru Acharya, Jaap Akkerhuis, Matthew Shears, Robert Guerra, Seun Ojedeji, Steve Crocker, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Tomohiro Fujasaki, Wanawith Ahkuputra, Yasuichi Kitamura, Maarten Simon

Staff:  Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad 

Apologies:  Phil Corwin

**Please let Grace know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


- Review minutes & action items from last meeting

- Update: workstreams & other updates

- Next steps



RFP4 conference call on January 06 at 14:30 UTC

No slides for today.

Call will end today at 15:30 UTC


Action Items from last call

ACTION: all to go through the list to remove elements that don't belong and add issues that do. (Siva has recirculated document)

COMPLETE Olivier to re-send his mindmap from 29 November

ACTION: Robert and grace to connect offline regarding DIDP

ACTION: all to assist in providing additional details to task list

COMPLETE: Add Jaap and Steve to RFP4 mailing list

COMPLETE: Grace to update Robert's slides before posting 



  • Those present in AC room will be noted as present. 
  • No one on audio-only


COMPLETE Olivier to re-send his mindmap from 29 November

Olivier shared mindmap -- thank you

Avri: Poll on risks to come up with ranges?

ACTION: Olivier will share parts of DSSA working group that relate to this

ACTION: all to go through the list to remove elements that don't belong and add issues that do. (Siva has recirculated document)

Siva: no participation at all from the group on the document on the scanrios

ACTION: please go through Olivier's mindmap and merge with Siva's document. Ideal to have 1 document, not 2. 


[Olivier presents the MindMap]

How to interpret each level? What do the colors mean?

--> colors are just default from software

--> mindmap is a few months old. welcome help in updating


CSC risk -- not flagging non compliance

MRT risks -- litigation; lack of multistakeholder equity (capture); slow response

IAP risk-- no specific concerns or risk if the panel is properly put together. exception is the cctld community

Contract Co. risks-- litigation; rogue board; rogue employees; does not follow policy


Next Call: Tentative for next Tuesday. Will confirm after additional guidance and coordination with larger CWG leadership group

ACTION: Grace to make sure that RFP4 meets before RFP5


Action Items

ACTION: Olivier will share parts of DSSA working group that relate to this

ACTION: all to go through the list to remove elements that don't belong and add issues that do. (Siva has recirculated document)

ACTION: please go through Olivier's mindmap and merge with Siva's document. Ideal to have 1 document, not 2.

ACTION: Grace to make sure that RFP4 meets before RFP5


Transcript RFP 4 Meeting #6 Jan 06.doc

Transcript RFP 4 Meeting #6 Jan 06.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented (or referred to)

MindMap IANA Entities Threats and Mitigation 2.pdf

IANA Entities Threats and Mitigation.pdf

IANA Entities Threats and Mitigation.docx


Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer:Hello Everyone!  Welcome to the RFP4 conference call on January 06 at 14:30 UTC.

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):hi, all, again.

  Seun Ojedeji:Hi

  Robert Guerra:Good day/night all

  Robert Guerra:no slides for today.

  Robert Guerra:will start at 5 min past our start time to officially start.

  Robert Guerra:let me propose the following agenda:

  Robert Guerra:- Review minutes & action items from last meeting)

  Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:Hi all

  Robert Guerra:- Update : Workstreams & other updates

  Robert Guerra:- Next steps

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):yes

  Seun Ojedeji:loud and clear

  Sivasubramanian M:Robert, no participation at all from the group on the document on the scanrios

  Robert Guerra:siva - can you speak to your document. is your audio ok?

  Steve Crocker:RFP3 has been heavily oriented toward separability.  In my view, this is unrealistic for a couple of reasons.  One important aspect that has not been delved into is what separation would actually mean.  If the IANA function were moved to another organization, precisely which functions would be moved and which would remain at ICANN?  How would the interactions between ICANN and the new organization work? 

  Sivasubramanian M:I will ask for a call, +91 99524 03099

  Sivasubramanian M:and then speak

  Sivasubramanian M:please proceed with other items

  Grace Abuhamad:Ok Siva -- we will dial out to you

  Sivasubramanian M:Grace please ask the operator to call me on +91 99524 03099

  Grace Abuhamad:yes, thank you. we are dialing

  Robert Guerra:siva - lyou are loud and clear

  matthew shears:@ Steve - doesn't the current contract assume in c.7  (I think) that moving the contract to another entity could occur.  Doesn't the continuity planning already identify what that would entail?  Thanks.

  Sivasubramanian M:Will do..  Olivier, please share the link to mindmap

  Grace Abuhamad:sure. One minute please

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:The mindmap is not online per-se

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:but I can comment on it if it is on the Adobe Connect

  Grace Abuhamad:done!

  Grace Abuhamad:yes, you have control of the document

  Grace Abuhamad:It's a large file so please adjust to your preference

  Guru Acharya:@Steve: The transfer plan under C.7.3 of the IANA Functions Contract will help us assess the risks associated with transfer of IANA functions to a new operator. The document is currently not available to the CWG. If the transfer plan reflects that such transfer is complex and risky, it would provide greater strength to your argument. Is it possible for you to help us with this document?

  Fatima Cambronero:thanks @Grace

  Seun Ojedeji:@Mathew i think the fundamental problem is that we are tasked with transitioning to multistakholder....and for me, any contracting plan that does not provide independence (like NTIA) will just further take us back in ICANN accountability efforts. So if we know that reality, why not then focus on improving ICANN accountability

  Avri Doria:wow, that was a strong statement.  "Reality check?"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed !

  Grace Abuhamad:@Olivier you are presenter!

  matthew shears:@ Seun - well the contract foresees such a possibility it is good for us to undestand what that means

  Greg Shatan:Matthew and Guru, you are correct.  C.7.3 states that ICANN must have "a plan in place for transitioning each of the IANA functions to ensure an orderly transition while maintaining continuity and security of operations. The plan shall be submitted to the COR eighteen (18) months after date of contract award, reviewed annually, and updated as appropriate. "  The CWG has informally requested a copy of that document and has been told it is not publicly available.  I think that document would go a long way toward answering Steve's question earlier in the chat.   It would be nice to know what it says.

  Steve Crocker:Guru, I'm told that no one has actually requested the transition plan through the formal channel.  I don't recall if I ever saw it. If I did, it was several years ago.  I do want to suggest, however, that it's likely not to be as helpful as you're hoping for.

  Robert Guerra:for me reality check = are in fact taking into consideration public comments in regards to model . There seems to be a strong sentiment that  model is too complex and needs to be simplified. Important to factor that in

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr::-) you sound le an aussie OCL

  Grace Abuhamad:my apologies for moving the arrow @olivier

  Steve Crocker:Re the transition plan, her

  Steve Crocker:Re the transition plan, here's a key point to consider.  The quoted wording in the contract is...

  Sivasubramanian M:Olivier, I have trouble understanding "not flagging non complicance" and " shared default"

  Steve Crocker:C.7.3 states that ICANN must have "a plan in place for transitioning each of the IANA functions to ensure an orderly transition while maintaining continuity and security of operations.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:that is how I read the weight of the PC as well @Robert

  Guru Acharya:@Steve: If any one of us files a DIDP request by tonight, do you think it would it possible for ICANN to respond before the week ends? A late reply would make the request redundant.

  Robert Guerra:Olivier - please speed up a bit. if you can in next 3 min quickly review t, not present entirely.

  Sivasubramanian M:Olivier is not on abobe so the quesetions may have to be read out to him

  Robert Guerra:please also focus on identifying risks that would remain even if model changes (which i see as very likely)

  Sivasubramanian M:Sorry, he is here

  Steve Crocker:That means ICANN wrote a plan for transitioning the existing functions.  It does NOT mean there is a corresponding plan in place for creating a new home for the IANA functions or for operating it.  The responsibility for doing so would, under the existing arrangement, fall to NTIA.  From my perspective, and I'll emphasize here that I'm speaking for myself and drawing on having been involved and watched the IANA operation and NTIA's administraton of it for more than a decade, NTIA has never been prepared to create an alternate IANA operation and does note have a coherent definitoon of what it would actually mean.

  Greg Shatan:"Vexatious litigation" is sanctionable and can result in disbarment, as well.

  Seun Ojedeji:I am not a lawyer but i don't know how an independent entity can formerly engage another without some form of agreement. So if you want to continue contracting then you need an independent "multistakeholder" (absolute independence from the operator) and if you agree that is not practically possible. Then you have to determine how to ensure that the current operator is held accountable (including getting it to arrange transition plans when absolutely necessary). I fear we have wasted quite a lot of time within RFP3 that has now made RFP4 working in assumptive mode

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Olivier  Best mitigated by not creating any

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Greg - and how often does that happen in the US?

  matthew shears:@ Steve - thanks but transitioning implies transitioning to some other entity which I asume the ICANN plan should have accounted for?

  Guru Acharya:@Steve: I didnt understand the difference between transitioning existing functions and finding a new home for the functions

  Fatima Cambronero:@Greg, "can result in disbarment" of what/who?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Fatima - of the lawyer bringing the vexaious lawsuit

  Seun Ojedeji:@Mattew i would also note that a transition plan does not always mean moving the function out of ICANN, it could also mean cleaning up the board(as its identified as the possible bottle-neck)

  Avri Doria:the mindmap could also be included as an appendix to the document.

  Fatima Cambronero:ohh thanks @Bernie

  Guru Acharya:@Seun: cleaning up?

  Sivasubramanian M:happens all the time

  Sivasubramanian M:Thanks Olivier

  Seun Ojedeji:@Guru by "cleaning up" i mean removing the board members

  Robert Guerra:yes - a task for adhoc group to review all the comments and factor them in

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Apologies but I need to start my other Conference Call

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:So I will need to drop off from here

  Robert Guerra:thank you olivier

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:but I will listen to the recording from the end of the call

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Thanks Robert!

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Version 2 of the statistical analysis of the Public

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Consultation is ready and awaiting approval for distribution

  Steve Crocker:@Matthew and Guru: The contract language tells ICANN to say how it woudl transition the IANA functions but it doesn't -- and can't -- say anything about the creation and operation of the new entity.

  matthew shears:understood but I think it would be intersting to know how those functions would be transitioned - thanks

  Sivasubramanian M:Grace,  next Tuesda ?

  Steve Crocker:I recommend that someone should actually ask for the document.  I am under the impression a formal request hasn't been submitted yet.

  Grace Abuhamad:yes

  Guru Acharya:@Greg or Matthew: Is it possible for any of you to put in a formal DIDP request?

  Grace Abuhamad:Noted @Cheryl thank you

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye

  Seun Ojedeji:Thanks and bye

  Bart Boswinkel:Bye all

  matthew shears:thanks!

  Seun Ojedeji:by the way happy new year ;)

  Fatima Cambronero:thanks @Robert, all. Bye

  Sivasubramanian M:bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:by/e. tga al

  • No labels