Attendees:
Members: Lisa Fuhr, Jonathan Robinson, Seun Ojedeji, Fatima Cambronero, Eduardo Diaz, Erick Iriarte, Elise Lindeberg, Wanawit Ahkuputra, Greg Shatan, Graeme Bunton, Avri Doria, Donna Austin, Robert Guerra
Participants: Brenden Kuerbis, Alan Greenberg, Christopher Wilkinson; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Gary Campbell, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Milton Mueller; Chuck Gomes, Martin Boyle, Wale Bakare, Allan MacGillivray, Guru Acharya, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Steve Crocker, Bertrand de La Chapelle, Lars-Erik Forsberg, Stephanie Duchesneau, Robin Gross
Staff: Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings, Theresa Swinehart
Apologies: Leon Sanchez; Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Milton Mueller (Staff: Brenda Brewer; Bart Boswinkel)
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Agenda:
1. Roll Call
2. Welcome - objective of call #2
3. Reconfirm core functions for MRT / CSC - remit, lines of reporting, composition
4. Review convergence areas of the survey in relation to MRT / CSC
5. Define additional details
6. Confirm agenda for next meeting
Notes & Action Items:
ANNOUNCEMENT: RFP 5 call has been postponed. The call was originally scheduled to follow this call (21:00 to 22:00 UTC).
Notes:
- Review core functions of CSC/MRT
- Review areas of convergence as well as other details that will need to be developed/agreed upon
- Keep in mind desire for less complexity
- Correlate comments received in response to survey
CSC - Green areas (areas of convergence)
Remit / function
a. There should be a CSC to carry out the tasks as defined the CWG Draft Proposal (question 1a of survey)
b. The role of the CSC should be focused on service level commitments performance indicators and quality assurance (question 13 of survey)
c. Periodic review of initial and future service level agreements (and a bi-lateral mechanic to bind IANA Function to those)
d. Publication of QA and performance indicators, receiving reports from the IANA Functions Operator (possibly redacted if appropriate)
e. Escalation power to MRT
f. Dealing with issues in the aggregate (individual issues to be raised directly by users - see g.)
Composition
g. Users should have the opportunity to go directly to the IANA functions operator rather than being required to go via an intermediary (question 10, 11 and 12 of survey)
h. The CSC should have a continuous existence (question 8 of survey)
i. The CSC membership should primarily consists of ccTLD and gTLD registry operators with related experts (question 4 of survey)
j. Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity (question 9 of survey)
k. Consider CSC as a sub-set of the MRT (e.g. like executive / non-executive board, could meet periodicially, corralation of activities)
l. Selection process needs to be defined (knowledge and skill component will be key), incl. how many members and how/who makes the selection (see for example SSAC membership application and review process). Terms should be defined.
m. General conflict of interest arrangements (e.g. registry involved in a delegation / redelegation action that is under consideration by CSC must recuse themselves from the discussion)
Lines of reporting
n. Principle of subsidiarity (solve issue at the lowest level before escalating)
o. Detail on issues of confidentiality need to be specified
MRT - Green areas (areas of convergence)
Lines of reporting
a. The MRT should not recreate another ICANN (question 6 of the survey)
Remit
b. Adequate care should be taken to restrict the growth dynamics of the MRT (question 7 of the survey)
Composition
c. There should be multistakeholder representation on the MRT (question 8 of the survey)
d. Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity (question of 18 of the survey)
e. The term length of MRT members should be limited to two full contract cycles (question 22 of the survey). Refinement of term and term-limits needed.
Function
Initial Consideration of MRT’s Functions (from the public consultation document):
- Issue instructions (to Contract Co. if formed) (see also tie with RFP4)
- Meet annually to review overall IANA Functions Operator performance
- Annual IANA Budget Review
- Address any escalation issues raised by the CSC
- Perform certain elements of administration currently set forth in the IANA Functions Contract and currently being carried out by the NTIA
- (Suggestion from Elise) Address any issue within their mandate as reviewing the IANA function operator
- Annual review of key performance indicators
- Platform for broader engagement with the community
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7wox8lz1i3/
The audio recording is available here:
Documents Presented
none
Chat Transcript
Marika Konings:Welcome to the IANA Stewardship Transition Meeting #2 of intensive work weekend on 10 January 2015
Marika Konings:Please note we are having technical issues with the phone bridge - you should be receiving new call in details shortly.
Marika Konings:When you log into Adobe Connect, you should receive the option to get a dial-out. Please choose that option if you would like to be called directly.
Alan Greenberg:New message at start about dialin and new icons showing I have never seen before.
Seun Ojedeji:Thanks Marika
Avri Doria:can we still use AC audio?
Fatima Cambronero:are we going to have audio en in the AC?
Marika Konings:@Alan - this is because we need to use a different bridge to technical difficulties at Verizon
Marika Konings:Audio will get connected via AC as well
Fatima Cambronero:ok, thanks
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):AC voice now seems to be up again
Matthew Shears:could we add to the green areas those that "scored yellow/orange" as well to give us a fuller picture?
Marika Konings:We'll be starting a little bit later due to these issues - please bear with us.
Seun Ojedeji:okay thanks for the update
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:We will be starting shortly
Guru Acharya:Can someone say a few reassuring words on the mic for us to test the audio on AC.
erick iriarte:well just finish prepared ceviche here in Lima (the summer is perfect for sea food)
Greg Shatan:All the fish here are frozen
Alan Greenberg:It would be more reassuring if ther ewas audio on the (or a) bridge.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:nice and yumm @Erick
Greg Shatan:There is a new bridge and Grace is speaking
Marika Konings:@Alan - did you manage to connect via the audio bridge? Grace is sending out the details now as well.
Marika Konings:if you didn't manage to connect via the AC room
Alan Greenberg:What is new phone bridge?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:I do not understand the 'cone of silence' pre official call start... but what do I know ;-) Alan
Matthew Shears:could we add to the green areas those that "scored yellow/orange" as well to give us a fuller picture?
Greg Shatan:You can join by dialing one of the access numbers below.International dial in numbers: https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=7110842038&num=1-719-867-1571Guest Passcode: 711 084 2038
Greg Shatan:This is also in an email
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:** Announcement** I was hoping t make a housekeeping announcement at the start of this call BUT => PLEASE nite based oin where we are in the proceeding of this weelends work I am postponing the planned RFP5 call currentky set to start at 2100 UTC today at the close of this call... I will also now send an email to the list(s)
Avri Doria:they may also have said so in their comments.
Avri Doria:perhaps we can also go through the comment relevant to these issues.
Chuck Gomes:It might also be helpful if those who said 'acceptable' would comment.
Avri Doria:thanks
Sivasubramanian M:what is a full contract cycle?
Avri Doria:would need to be set in bylaws.
Avri Doria:what forms of enforrcement and complaince?
Guru Acharya:in a termed contract, the service levels can be renegotiated at the end of every contract cycle.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Steve Crocker earlier made a comment regarding some aspect of IANA procedures or performance that IANA is not currently allowed to publish. Does that factor in here?
Seun Ojedeji:I agree with Guru although it doesn't have to be termed: ref: IETF does review its SLA annually
Greg Shatan:Could be negotiated more often; all depends what is in the contract
Greg Shatan:+1 Seun
Avri Doria:ok, so no power other than conversation and escalation. worth making explicit.
Greg Shatan:Conversation with teeth, so to speak....
Guru Acharya:I lost track. I thought MRT negotiates the terms of the contract; CSC should only suggest revised service levels to MRT.
Matthew Shears:escalation assumes an MRT with teeth
Elise Lindeberg GAC:Avri - that is power :)
Greg Shatan:Just about any plan assumes an MRT with teeth
Greg Shatan:even if they are borrowed from Contract Co
Seun Ojedeji:I think f is more suitable under MRT?
Matthew Shears:11 and 12 need to be taken into consideration at the same time
Greg Shatan:It gets a bit more challenging if there is no contract to enforce, but RFP3b has that issue
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:shouldnt there be clarity when CSC can address directly IANA and when issues should be escalated to the MRT
Matthew Shears:+ 1 Lars
Brenden Kuerbis:I'd say there is pretty consistent direction with 10,11,12.
Matthew Shears:yep
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Lars - why do we need to restrict what the CSC can talk about???
Guru Acharya:Are there any issues where CSC and MRT can give contradictory directions to IANA?
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Elise: you are hard to understand
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):The CSC cannot give direction. They can talk and discuss.
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:threshold our at least clear rules what issues needs to be escaleted
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):repeat
Seun Ojedeji:@Guru i think that is possible considering that CSC is not expected to be a clone of MRT
Matthew Shears:if an issue cannot be resolved by the CSC with the IANA operator shouldn't it be escalated to the MRT? Again depends on where the power lie vis-a-vis the operator
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Guru - Not in the current plan - on performance issues if the CSC does not send it up to the MRT the MRT does not get involved - if the MRT gets involved then its the MRT decision
erick iriarte:only to be clear with point f: users of IANA are tlds (cc's and gtlds) or users means something different?
erick iriarte:because iana give them (TLDs) some services.
Greg Shatan:Maybe we need to clarify what is happening now. And what should be changed.
Seun Ojedeji:@Bernard what indicator will prompt CSC to escalate to MRT, will it be upon non-compliance from IANA operator after CSC has tried to get them to comply?
Matthew Shears:if there are overall performance issues they should probably to to CSC - individual issues could go directly to IANA operator?
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):so we assume that registries take their individual cases to the CSC?
Brenden Kuerbis: Yes!
Greg Shatan:Seun, that is a fairly clear-cut case -- yes they should escalate at that point..
Matthew Shears:+ 1 Alan
Brenden Kuerbis:I wasa agreeing with Alan
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):ok, i alwasy thought of it as a group dealing with aggregate issues. my confusion.
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Alan +1
Chuck Gomes:Alan just stated a good principle, solve at the lowest level.
Robert Guerra:we are commenting on a possible process - which IMHO is good.
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:so this is a rule as such an clarity whe CSC should escalate to MRT. I think it needs to be written down
Matthew Shears:agree should e written down
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Chuck: solave at lowest level and scalate if not satisfied
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:yes
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):and scalate all the way to the IAP if necesarry
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1 Alan
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Matthew, the only power lies with the contract holder or whoever the contract holder formally delegates authority to.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):dealing with the individual issue of 100s od registries may be challenging and require scaling considerations.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):i mean 1000s of registries
Robert Guerra:Principle of Subsidiarity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
Guru Acharya:+1 Donna
Robert Guerra:Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.
Seun Ojedeji:Okay if that is the case, i presume that is workable so long at CSC is sticking to the SLA requirements/terms so CSC don't request the operator to comply on what is not within the SLA (iref: item b very important)
Matthew Shears:+ 1 Donna
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):do all registries have the same SLA?
Brenden Kuerbis:Ticket system, documentation? Seems like that would be a SLA detail?
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):BY the way, which one is the group that makes sures that IANA is following policy? the CSC?
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):or MRT?
Donna Austin, RySG:Thanks Bernie, so absent NTIA, the information needs to be provided to someone.
Grace Abuhamad 2:The principle of subsidiarity was addressed in the Strategy Panel report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ig-ecosystem-report-23may14-en.pdf
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1 Donna
Kurt Pritz:there should be an independent QA function (CSC or some other independent body or both) that is privy to. a regular QA report
Robert Guerra:+1 Kurt
Matthew Shears:+ 1 Donna - particulalry as it should be taken into acocunt in the annual reviews
Guru Acharya:As Donna asked, absent NTIA, will the reports go to CSC or MRT or both or publicly published?
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Kurt - meant for the CSC
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):is it mmy imagination or is CSC becoming more complex by the minute?
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):or rather its task is.
Matthew Shears:Q 6 about additional individuals with technical expertise was generally supported
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):i read it as excluding multistakeholder
Seun Ojedeji:On 4 it should be clear though whether related mean 1 out of every 5 cctld/gtld for instance
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Chuck: I would support complete openness!
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Yes!
Matthew Shears:My recollection was that the CSC was more specifically technical and limited and the MRT has more multistakeholder representation
Seun Ojedeji:so will be CSC composition be balanced on both sides (expert and registiry operators)
Brenden Kuerbis:Agree with Matt
Chuck Gomes:What value does M-S add to CSC?
Matthew Shears:the "related experts" could include appropriate MS representation
Matthew Shears:of course this would be largely moot if the CSC were a subset of the MRT
Donna Austin, RySG:I think addressing the question of 'how many' people do you need to form a CSC would be useful to understand.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):Matt, but the skill set is still probably different
erick iriarte:experts request for selection: multisktaholder, experience, cultural and geographical diversity.
Guru Acharya:but do they participate in consensus?
erick iriarte: experts requirements for selection: multisktaholder, experience, cultural and geographical diversity.
erick iriarte:gender balance too :)
Christopher Wilkinson:We should not leave CSC to the Registries. We do not know what will become the business priorities of currently unknown numbers of Registries. CW
Seun Ojedeji:Hmm...i fear CSC may become political if we start bringing in those requirements @Erick. I think understanding of IANA operation should be the main capital requirement
Guru Acharya:@Alan: Will the ad-hoc members participate in consensus building - especially when consensus takes the form of polls?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):You could only have the CSC as a subset of the MRT is there were sufficieint registries on the MRT, and that goes against the balance of the MRT.
Chuck Gomes:Notice our tendency to increase complexity because of fears even though we are talking about very clearly defined and limited functions.
Matthew Shears:Q 6 shows support for having experts outside the naming community - those could be represntative from a MS perspective
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:+&
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Is that bell that periodically ringing a 2-minute timer?
Chuck Gomes:No Alan.
Marika Konings:@Alan - I believe it is a new person joining the phone bridge.
Chuck Gomes:I would agree with Eduardo if the CSC evaluating policy but it is not.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Thanks. Given the time, perhaps it is time to start using the timer.
Sivasubramanian M:Q: Is there any room at all to think that ICANN would manage IANA functions in a manner that would harm the Registries when they are not looking? In other words what can go wrong if there is no CSC?
erick iriarte:question @christopher why tlds must not participate in the CSC? they are part of the system and direct users of the system, they must need a representation.
Marika Konings:@Alan - please note that Jonathan at the beginning of the meeting suggested that the meeting could go longer if needed.
Brenden Kuerbis:Tebd to agree with Chuck. If CSC is limited in scope and transperent, why the need to overload what is largely SLA monitoring?
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):huh? i do not understand the difference
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Marika, that must have been while I was joining the bridge.
Seun Ojedeji:good question @SM ;-)
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):the one Jonathan just mentioned about drawing member of the CSC from the MRT and making them part of the same entitiy.
Steve Crocker:Perhaps it would be helpful clarify what sort of "policy" we're talking about here.
Sivasubramanian M:waiting for an answer for clarity Seun
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):certainly two sperate groups that sometimes meet together i understnad, but they are still distinct groups.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Not CSC's job
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1 Chcuck
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):If MRT is balanced MS, there will not be a predominence of registries on it. So how can a largely Ry CSC be drawn from it?
Brenden Kuerbis:If a party believes that implementation has not followed a policy authority direction, I would think that would be grounds for approaching IAP. Nothing to do with CSC responsibilities, as I understand them.
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):agree with bernie
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):CSC is going to be a good part time job
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Siva: it is more about monitoring, recording and resolving failures in performance like delays in action for changing records. This has happened in the past. The registries are aware of delays that afect them, but sharing that info among other registries to spot whether it is endemic
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):one without pay of course.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):AdHoc does not mean there are no skilled people there. Just as with this CWG, we allow other "participants"
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Is that your question?
Seun Ojedeji:I agree with you
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Bernard +1
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):I don't disagree with Bernie. Perhaps Ad Hoc was the wrong word. BUt I was trying to address the "restriction" of who could participate.
Matthew Shears:(Just to note on the issue of the CSC being a subset of the MRT - this was rejected in Q 17)
Seun Ojedeji:by the way who does the selection for CSC memers
Seun Ojedeji:*members*
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):Robert: so separate functions that caan be held by the same body?
Brenden Kuerbis:Yes, Matt
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Alan - ok
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@alan - qualification is key above all
Christopher Wilkinson:Chuck and Bernie seem to think that "we" (who?) can keep control over the membershiop of an CSC. I do not trust that outcome. On the contrary, most of the Registries which will have a 'stake' in IANA are currently unknown. Therefore a strong MS component is necessary.
Sivasubramanian M:Thanks Martin.
Guru Acharya:I feel that MRT should develop service levels; CSC should only suggest service levels to MRT.
Sivasubramanian M:So it does go wrong or at least go slow at times?
Sivasubramanian M:sort of implementation bottlenecks?
erick iriarte:another point... in the case of point i. must have balance between cctlds and gtlds, and also geographical and cultural diversity.
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:+erick
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:that sounds like a book of records: how many people in a mini-cooper
Robert Guerra:we need to be careful and take into consideration that there is a interest to keep structures small and not getting out of hand.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Once the dust settles, I suspect there will be very few non-customer (or very closely related) interested in participating.
Brenden Kuerbis:I really fear we are starting to replicate m-s ICANN structures within each of the entities proposed. I'll remind that this we explicitly rejected in survey. Each proposed structure has a specific purpose.
Donna Austin, RySG:@Alan, I agree.
Robert Guerra:+1 brenden
Guru Acharya:+1 brenden
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1 Alan
Seun Ojedeji:We have clarified the role of CSC but stuck on composition....time time time...how about composition is resolved by tasking SSAC like setup
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Someone said that ICANN techie types tend to overengineer structures. I think that we have a good example here.
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+
Brenden Kuerbis:Lost sound
Graeme Bunton - RrSG:As did I
Marika Konings:We are reconnecting the bridge
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):audio support needs to be turned back on.
Marika Konings:we lost the connection
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:back
Robin Gross:no sound
Greg Shatan:Bridge collapsed
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:nice baby
Seun Ojedeji:audio back
Brenden Kuerbis:And we're back...
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:unhappy baby
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Audio back on adobe, but not on bridge. Need to re-dial?
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):Lars, i agreed with what the baby was saying.
Seun Ojedeji:Ops sorry about that....did not hit the mute early enough ;)
Brenden Kuerbis:lol
Marika Konings:you should receive an automatic dial-out back (if you had one before)
Marika Konings:if not, please log back in to Adobe Connect again and you should receive the option to set a dial-out
Grace Abuhamad 2:No problem @Seun. Congrats on your newborn!
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+ 1 chcuck
Christopher Wilkinson:+ 1 Chuck
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):+1 robert
Brenden Kuerbis:Yes, Robert
Greg Shatan:primarily doesn't equal exclusively. quite the opposite.
Matthew Shears:Please note that the subset notion was rejected in Q 17
Brenden Kuerbis:69% disagreement
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Too bad no one can see the rest of us gesticulating.
Greg Shatan:Your gesticulation is seen above, Alan.
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:he has
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:+1 Elise
Matthew Shears:I agree with Elise - the MS component can be worked through the acceptance of external experts per Q 6
Greg Shatan:Thanks, Brenden. While the survey is not dispositive, 69% is instructive.
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Steve:: That was my question before but I was no able to deliver it correctly
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:it was about delegation/redelegation
Jonathan Robinson:@martin coming to you
Jonathan Robinson:Sorry
Christopher Wilkinson:Steve is correct, of course, BUT, ICANN has arranged for a transformation of the Registry demography. The new guys may not buy into the stus quo.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):if a (re) delgation was done without propoer checks and balances. if someone wants to chanllenge that the process was followed properly where do they go?
Steve Crocker:They go to the place where that decision is made
Chuck Gomes:@ Avri - I think that should be handled via the IAP with an appeal filed by the SO that developed the policy.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):currently NTIA makes sure that all was done kosher like. in the future?
Chuck Gomes:That may be an Accountability CCWG track 1 issue.
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Avri: gtlds: ICANN or IAP?
Donna Austin, RySG:Fair point Bernie
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:icann do the evaluation and sign a contract. if it was done wrong, then they need to be challenged, surely?
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:For cctlds: via IAP - but only on process or documentation of the decision
Steve Crocker:There's no questoon that delegations and redelegations have to be done carefully and that there has to be appropriate aqccountability, review and recourse mechanisms. But that's not an IANA function.
Matthew Shears:We should probably continue with the CSC and then move into the MRT
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):Martin IAP seems an ok answer. As things stand, IANA would have been doing what ICANN told them to do, so appealing to ICANN would not have much point.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):MArtin, and for ccTLDs? IAP?
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@avri: surely if the fault is icann's, the issue is in icann's accountability processes.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):Martin, ok, then this is another one of those XCWG issues
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Avri: answered separately on cctlds
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I'd think so
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):Martin, thanks, missed it
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):note: in the CCWG i am one of those monitoring XCWG issues.
Seun Ojedeji:HELLO DID WE REALISE THAT WE HAVE SPENT 2 HOURS ON CSC ALONE? WHEN ARE WE GOING TO START MRT....should we be worried...maybe ;-)
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):The NomCom? The ICANN NomCom?
Brenden Kuerbis:Agree with Greg. Let various groups be on the hook for creating accountable processes for sending delegates to various entities.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@ Bernie +1
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):Bottom up groups get to pick their own way of picking people.
Brenden Kuerbis:Sure there need to be criteria. But don't make it selection by some ICANN committee, board, etc.
Robin Gross:Agree, Avri. We should pick our own.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Bernie, for the entire CSC or the "core" workers?
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1 Lise
Donna Austin, RySG:@Lise -- similarly with gTLDs as well
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):one of these suggestions from the RySG alternative proposal was to introduce a liaison role between the registry-led body and the multi-stakeholder body
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Alan - Flexible - qualifications are key
Mary Uduma:Nomination in the CCs may be a challenge as some are outsdie the organised group of ccNSO, how can we overcome this?
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:I think if we are talking about a small group there should be at least one rep from the ccs and gs just from a practical point of view
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Let us remember also that the MRT is going to have to live with the results of who is on the CSC given the linkage
Donna Austin, RySG:@Robert: the SSAC is not a bad idea, with one modification, that the number of members of the CSC be restricted rather than open-ending.
Donna Austin, RySG:@Robert: the contentious issue is possibly who does the selection.
Chuck Gomes:@ Mary: Isn't Lise an example of how the ccTLDs handled the ccNSO member issue?
Christopher Wilkinson:Good night. I look forward to joining the calls tomorrow. CW
Mary Uduma:@Chuck
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):One question that was missing, that we had with CSC, is does it need to be a standing body.
Matthew Shears:Main question 1 seemes to indicate pretty good support for the MRT as outlined in the CWG draft
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):I would like to understand how we could have a Multistakeholder Review Team WITHOUT Multistakeholder representation?
Donna Austin, RySG:@Avri, I think it does
Mary Uduma:@ Chuck, I do not see this example satisfying all the CCs. I think it would be a different ball game at the csc membership
Robert Guerra:Please note that there is an error in the table - MRT Q.22 should be Yellow, as % difference no > 75%
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Alan - ?
Brenden Kuerbis:#22 has high "no response." IMO, the answer really depends on terms chosen.
Matthew Shears:Q 8 covers that I think CSC
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):16 found it
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):8 Continuous existence.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):ok thanks
Matthew Shears:it is MRT Q 16
Robert Guerra:perhaps we might want to change the name we are giving things to reflect how the conversation is evolving..
Robert Guerra:meant to say - we might want to rename the entities we are discussing
Matthew Shears:@ Alan - Q 8 on MRT seems to suggest that the MRT would have MS represnetation
Robert Guerra:2-3 years?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Jonathan - was just noting that in Q8, 3 people advocated an MRT without MS representation. And 6 did not have an opinion.
Seun Ojedeji:Have to leave now....thanks for the discussion
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Matthew, yes, that was the statistical result. Just noting those who did not agree.
Jonathan Robinson:Thanks Seun
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Alan - Q8 if for MS on the MRT?
Matthew Shears:Should probably not suggest number of years until we have decided on contract length but agree that the terms should not be overly short or long
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:But contract cycles is wrong
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:sorry Q8 is for MS in MRT
Mary Uduma:@ Martin, +1. I think the terms of the membership of Committee should not be tied to the contract cycle
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Bernie, yes, that is the number it has on my report. About 65% into the doc.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):Well the MRT even has to work in alternate models, so why not fix it at 2 x 2
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):or 2 x 3 or even 3 x 2
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:2X terms (for a lenght of term to be defined) @Avri?
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):yes or even 3x
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:should we not decide on function before we even discuss how long the members term should be +elise!!!
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):but my main argument is that it can be ConCoP independent
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:YES please to FUNCTION discussion
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:Ditch the 1st bullet point though as Contract Co is NOT settled
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:or chnge to (if formerd)
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):We were told that the NTIA does this...
Brenden Kuerbis:Support Martin's comment
Robert Guerra:suggest that review public comments in regards to iana & budget.
Donna Austin, RySG:There has also been recent discussion of the budget in the context of the IANA function being removed from ICANN. There is the assumption of some, that ICANN will make the budget (collected through fees) available to a new operator.
Allan MacGillivray:Perhaps the estbalishment of an IANA Budget should be one of the items in the next INAN functions contract/MOU
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):But isn't the ability to do that part of functional speration within the compnay?
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:No: it is because we are funding it as registries
Brenden Kuerbis:Not necessarily just performance. You might want to have a handle on whther or not the operator is reinvesting, innovating.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):we are curently in the state of 'functional separation' or so i thought. if so the budget should be visibly separate.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Avri, staff entirely allocated to IANA is easy. shared resurces including space, infrastructure service dept's are a lot more difficult (and arbitrary) to sub-divide.
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Isn't this the other side of the discussions on SLA, performance, volume?
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):Alan, nonetheless budgets do it.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Avri, yes, but the implication is that tweaking the budget does not necessarily result in better performance. So something that is highly desireable, but not necessarily a controlling factor.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):You do not lose those efficiancies, if you do finacial allocation to different budgets
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Chuck +1
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):i am only talking about bdugetting practice not physical separation.
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):But then you would be able to answer question of what does it cost. And part of being accountable is knowing what something costs.
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:agree with Avri
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):and there should be a budget that shows all of these facts. can this transtion request that as part of the ongoing service?
Brenden Kuerbis:Is it really that difficult for ICANN to do activity-based costing?
Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):transparency on costs is part of service accountabilty.
Matthew Shears:MRT should have a full knowledge and understanding of the performance and the budget of the operator, whether ICANN or some other entity
Greg Shatan:A review of KPIs is not enough -- budget review offers an opportunity to prevent budget cuts that would affect those KPIs, before it becomes a performance issue.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Lots of background noise.
Grace Abuhamad 2:sorry @Alan -- I will give the group a reminder
Steve Crocker:For the record, I very much like the idea of a CSC, and I do not feel the MRT is needed at all.
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Do we need to look at comments in the survey?
Matthew Shears:The numbers are pretty faorable so may be we need to addres some specific points if there are some at this point
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:I believe that the MRT is a must if CSC should look they way we are now sugegsting. No MRT I can ensure you that the proposal will not be acceptable by teh MS community at large
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:sorry to be rough but this is clear to me
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:this is the time to be clear
Greg Shatan:If not this multistakeholder body, which one?
Brenden Kuerbis:Yes, no details exist of this "other body"
Lise Fuhr:We still need to ensure that non ICANN participants are represented somehow
Gary Campbell:Greg this is the body
Greg Shatan:Yes my question was rhetorical.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Maybe Steve would elaborate on what he would use instead?
Matthew Shears:I think we need to address specific concerns related to this model rather than look to alternative models given the general support for the MRT
Gary Campbell:@Matthew I tend to agree
Robin Gross:too late in the game for new models
Brenden Kuerbis:Agree Matt
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:or Queen Aln ;-)
Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Of course, Queen Cheryl!
Brenden Kuerbis:Go ahead Elise
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:+MAtt
Milton Mueller:can't hear Elise
Milton Mueller:can you repeat the gist of it?
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:+1 Elise!
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:The question is about an MRT drawn fromm the policy-making teams
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Very specific
Brenden Kuerbis:Paraphrasing Elise -we must discuss the model as currently drafted. Correct?
Matthew Shears:The MRT should be broader than the policy-making orgs of course
erick iriarte:bye
Fatima Cambronero:thanks all, bye
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:thanks all and good night
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):thank you grace
Matthew Shears:thanks all - very useful discussions
Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Thanks all
Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:bye
Gary Campbell:Bye everyone
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:bye
Brenden Kuerbis:bye all
