Subgroup Members: Allan MacGillivray, Camino Manjon, Gary Campbell, Gary Hunt, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jiankang Yao, John Poole, Mary Uduma, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Robert Guerra, Seun Ojedeji, Sivasubramania Muthusamy, Wanawit Ahkuputra

Staff:  Bart Boswinkel, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Vinciane Koenigsfeld

Apologies:  Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Avri Doria

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


RFP 4 group call # 7

CWG Stewardship Transition 28 January 2015, 14.00-16.00 UTC

0. welcome/introduction.. of tasks/minutes from last call

2. review/updates from sub-workings groups on  timeline(s), stress tests

3. improvements to working methods

4. Planning for ICANN Singapore meeting

5. Other items


Action SIVA: review document CCWG and merge with documents of this group. 

Action Siva:  Group /merge the tests/scenario's identified in similar way as WA 4 CCWG list.

  • Need to check whether scenario relevant for transition.Include in document , with qualification, important , normal, not relevant in this context.

Action all: request if participants see a need to meet, if so , then use Doodle poll to set time.

  •  Question: is there need for meeting before Singapore by this group? Response need on the list by Friday 30 January 2015. 16.00 UTC.

Action staff : try to arrange meeting with BRC to seek information from them on  risks already identified, and possibly relevant for RFP 4 group 

Action Staff: RFP 4 wants to have a meeting with (IANA)  staff/and or NTIA around meaning of tests


RFP 4 group call #7

CWG Stewardship Transition 28 January 2015, 14.00-16.00 UTC

0. welcome/introduction.

Siva  & Seun audio only

Assess work has been done to date, get updates, plan moving forward

1. review of tasks/minutes from last call

  • Update Siva on document on stress document and updates received:
  • To date no participation on stress test document. Members are requested to have alook at the document.

2. review/updates from sub-workings groups on  timeline(s), stress tests

  • CCWG Accountability has been doing work on stress test and scenario's/ Suggestion to look at the work of CCWG Accountability
  • OCL: Notes, potential of duplicating work.. Notes a limited number of scenarios, compared with work of the CWG RFP 4.


Action SIVA: review document and merge with documents of this group. 

Include in document , with qualification, important , normal, not relevant in this context.

Based on this document, group to design a survey.


Note this group: Larry Strickling asked some specific questions to CWG, and one in particlur to this group.



Jaap: notes difference made between test for transition and those related to accountability. Further Siva list needs to be trimmed to proper risks.. Currently list is open ended.. 


Action Siva: Group /merge the tests/scenario's identified in similar way as WA 4 CCWG list. Need to check if relevant for transition.

Question: what does it mean if a test fails? What are the metrics if doing the test/benchmark?

No clear answer. This is testing organization. 

Suggestion: check what is meant with testing. Is checking impact on 


Action Staff: RFP 4 wants to have a meeting with staff/and or NTIA around meaning of tests


Going forward

No further comments on Larry Strickling statement


Greg: Check what are causes ans outcomes. tests should be focused on IANA specific risks. 


OCL: Board Risk Framework Committee,(BRC) is working on list of contingencies. This list is most likely not publicly available.  Assumption the list of scenario's is on list.


Action staff : try to arrange meeting with BRC to seek information from them on  risks already identified, and possibly relevant for RFP 4 group


Update Timeline, transition time line 

OCL: Time line was geared against one proposal , however it this is now changing given RFP 3b now will look at two alternatives.


Update RFP 3b AM

RFP 3b contributes to document of CWG in preparation Singapore. The internal Option, will include two variants

"Trust" option

"Bylaw option"


RFP 3 update: moving forward on fleshing out Contract Co option. Latest focus on structural details and functions

As structural details are build out, more details could be included in set risks


 3. improvements to working methods

Looking for better coordination with other groups within CWG and with WA 4 of CCWG.

Need to avoid silo-ed work.

Question: what is best way to evolve work of this group, in conjunction with evolution of the differnt models. 

How could coordination and collaboration with others could be improve

  • GS: Iterative process between RFP 3 and RFP 4. Would  be helpful for RFP 3 to review work of RFP 4 to inform their work: apply stress test while models are developed. 
  • Vice versa also applies.  Update stress test, when tests are applied to models. 
  • Actively compare risk scenario's developed by different groups: BRC, CCWG, CWG and others
  • RG: To assist Feed-back of this group to RFP 3, what are changes going forward.
  • OCL:  Raises concern that RFP 3b has reached standstill until Singapore awaiting Legal consideration. Risk of moving forward by this, without a linkage. 
  • GS: notes legal advise is limited,  should not be preclude to work in parallel on developing tests. 
  • Try to work in parallel, and improve coordination to avoid wasting efforts. 


 4. Planning for ICANN Singapore meeting

  • Possible meetings with others. Suggestion to be send to list
  • Action all: request if participants see a need to meet, if so , then use Doodle poll to set time.
  • Question: is there need for meeting before Singapore by this group? Response need on the list by Friday 30 January 2015. 16.00 UTC.

 5. Other items

No comments


Transcript RFP4 28 JAN.doc

Transcript RFP4 28 JAN.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: Good Day everyone.  Welcome to the RFP4 call on 28 JAN.

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Hi All!

  Robert Guerra:we will start 4-5 min past the hour. to allow more people to join us

  Brenda Brewer:Siva is on phone line only

  Robert Guerra:thanks brenda. welcome siiva. we will start in a minute

  Allan MacGillivray:Good morning Robert et al.

  Brenda Brewer:Siva's line must be muted on his end.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2:I cannot hear Siva

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2:aah ok good now

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2:I can speak about RFP3b, if you wish

  Brenda Brewer:Seun Ojedeji is on the phone line only

  Robert Guerra:

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2:Again, I'd like to point people to the DSSA's work. Its remit was described here:

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2:DSSA final report:

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2:I note that the Board DNS Risk Management Framework has also identified many rirks to ICANN. I know it doesn't directly relate to our own work, but it is likely to relate to the Accountability CCWG work

  Sivasubramanian M Phone:sorry . in an Env toonoisy.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2:aaah but you have an analytical mind, Jaap! You can test anything! :-)

  Brenda Brewer:Berry's phone line disconnected

  Berry Cobb:Sorry, yes not able to talk.  No updates on timeline as it relates to RFP4

  Robert Guerra:thanks berry.

  Greg Shatan:At the risk of stating the obvious, the other list of "potential failures" that must be assembled is a list of the failures that could happen to the proposed post-transition structures (with scenarios for the Trustee/Trust/Guardian, Contract Co, MRT/CSC, IAP, etc.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2:The other option is colloquially called the "golden bylaw" option

  John Poole:John Poole: Is there a link to the "Proposed Consolidated Contingency/Scenarios" document(s)?

  Allan MacGillivray:I am in complete agreement with Greg on coordination between RFP3b, 3b and RFP4.

  Greg Shatan:Of course, we need to be as efficient as possible under the circumstances.,

  Greg Shatan:I agree that nothing will be final until everything is final....  Also, at some point, it will not be possible to "iterate" without legal input -- but we are not at that point yet.  In essence, we should try to get to that point.  (And the legal consultation should try to get up to the point where that doesn't occure, etc.).

  Allan MacGillivray:Bye all!

  Robert Guerra:thank you all

  Greg Shatan:Bye and thanks!

  • No labels