IANA CWG Meeting #23 (24 February)

---

Proposed Agenda 24/2: 

1. Opening Remarks

2. Finalization of Work Methods

3. Integrated Model

4. Discussion on Proposed Design Teams

5. AOB

6. Closing Remarks

Notes 24/2: 

Opening Remarks

Committed to a refreshed approach 

Bernie has been developing a version 2.0 draft:  

1. can be used as a map

2. compared to other proposals

3. can be used as a backbone to hang incremental progress (such as work of the Design Teams)

 

Finalization of Work Methods

• Meet twice per week as CWG (as much substance as possible)
• 3 meeting slots for Design Teams: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Sign+Up+Meeting+Slots
• Role of Chairs in Design Teams: coordinate and manage the fact that DTs are not all running at the same time and that there are not too many people in one DT, etc. 

Integrated Model

Presented by Avri Doria

• Idea started at ICANN52
• Wanted to preserve what is most important about IANA as we know it (continuity).
• Didn't expect to build another model, was looking for compromise points (but it turned into another model)
• There is a degree of separation in all of them (today this exists too -- the IANA team is functionally separate)
• Included notion of a community Board including all three operational commnities (sort of a "MRT plus" because accountable to greater community)

Questions/Discussion

• Community Board is an accountability anchor (includes other operational communities)
• This model would make IANA one degree further of separation from what currently exists with GDD
• Model proposers advocate for the model, but have flexibility with the variants. Preference for shared services model. 
• Andrew Sullivan: Subsidiary approach is most doable in this year's timeframe 
• Elise Lindeberg: Possibility for separation of IANA: how can this be done in this model? Response (Avri Doria): can be done but would require a process (initiated by ICANN or Community Board)
• Milton Mueller: not sure I understand how separability works. Response (Avri Doria): there are different degrees of separation already today
• IAP is something that still hasn't been worked on 
• Alissa Cooper: The whole discussion about additional involvement from the IETF/RIRs in oversight seems like a distraction from trying to solve the core issue of contention before this group, which is where the oversight of the names function will end up on the internal-to-external spectrum.

Integrated Model Related Links

• The Integrated Model Description: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5YZCU/edit?usp=sharing
• Discussion of accountability in the model: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cKpQ3lenL8Gt6qT6r7JRePlujXp9_xM0c1SlrTFFW90/edit?usp=sharing
• Post Transition IANA Community  Board discussion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SwtczN5HzlC5m-IogNQWezDl2sKIHc82ysRnn9yT56Q/edit?usp=sharing

Recap by Chairs

• Favoring of the subsidiary model; 
• Lots of mention of accountability (coordination there)
• IAP needs to be further developed 

Discussion of Proposed Design Teams

Some ideas that have been discussed: 

• Service Levels 
• IAP 
• CSC

Action (Donna Austin) Need list of names for Service Levels Design Team 

Action (Paul Kane): proposal needed for Service Levels DT

Action (Allan MacGillivray)  submit proposal for IAP

• Propose to have a "funnel" or list of potential Design Teams, but we'll start with 3 and record the rest for future work
• Proposals must be submitted on CWG mailing list but the Chairs are to review

AOB

• A liaison from / to the ICANN board: will not develop the idea at this advanced stage of the CWG
• Timetable including F2F meeting in one month: will be producing a fresh version soon. The F2F meeting will take place in Istanbul on 26-27 March. 
• Note: Standards of behaviour, tone of discussions: please keep things civil on list. Depending on how you participate, it may limit how robustly you may respond; please be mindful of that
• RFP subgroups: We will no longer run the RFP sub groups. Will meet as committees of the whole instead. RFP coordinators will continue to be relied on for support. 

Closing Remarks

Thank you Avri and colleagues for substantive meeting

 

Next meeting is on Thursday 26 February at 11:00 UTC

Action Items

Action (Donna Austin) Need list of names for Service Levels Design Team 

Action (Paul Kane): proposal needed for Service Levels DT

Action (Allan MacGillivray)  submit proposal for IAP

 

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #23 23 FEB.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #23 23 FEB.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5dy582a0lj/

The audio recording is available here:   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-24feb15-en.mp3

Documents Presented

Guidelines for a CWG DesignTeam-Final20Feb.pdf

WorkMethods-PostSingapore-Final20Feb.pdf

IntegratedIANA1.1-150223.pdf

Integrated-model-accountabilty-150223.pdf

PTIBoard-150223.pdf

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer:Welcome All to the CWG IANA call on Tuesday, 24 February.

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):hi, all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:good day all

  Andrew Sullivan:Hi.  I've foined the call

  Robert Guerra:Hi all

  Lise Fuhr:Hello all

  Jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Good evening

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Hello all

  jorge cancio:hi all

  Milton Mueller:greeeeetings

  Keith (ccnso):Hi all

  Gary Hunt UK Govt.:Good evening (UK time anyway!)...

  Greg Shatan:Hi noon.

  Sivasubramanian M:hello

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:Hello all

  Grace Abuhamad:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Sign+Up+Meeting+Slots

  Grace Abuhamad:the document has scroll control for all

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:Thx Grace

  Grace Abuhamad:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5YZCU/edit?usp=sharing

  Wale Bakare:Hi

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:Page 6 is the Shared Services Arrangement Avri is referring to currently.

  matthew shears:the diagrams at the end of the presentation are more clear than the rough drawing up front

  Grace Abuhamad:Avri do you want me to upload those?

  Grace Abuhamad:The links are here: Discussion of accountability in the model: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cKpQ3lenL8Gt6qT6r7JRePlujXp9_xM0c1SlrTFFW90/edit?usp=sharingPost Transition IANA Community  Board discussion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SwtczN5HzlC5m-IogNQWezDl2sKIHc82ysRnn9yT56Q/edit?usp=sharing

  Jonathan Robinson:Participants can scroll the document to see other content including diagrams

  matthew shears:thanks Avri!

  Mary Uduma:Thanks Avri

  matthew shears:yes the shared services model

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:Yes, SSA seems the most likely to gain supprt IMO

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):I read somewhere that the IETF did not want to get into a shared arrangement

  matthew shears:we have not cavassed formally either the IETF or the RIRs

  matthew shears:but have spoken to some individually

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:Andrew: other than the counterparty changing, what issues arise given its the same IANA department?

  Alan Greenberg:Cannot hear.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:can you recap Elise comments please

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Thx

  jorge cancio:the three communities are just the three operational communities or would they go beyond that?

  Andrew Sullivan:@Brenden: I don't think I fully understand the question.  To set up a shared services arrangement among ICANN, IETF, and RIRs, you have to set up a completely new legal agreement

  Andrew Sullivan:That seems to me to be something of a significant amount of work.  Step 0 would be, "Convince the other orgs to get involved"

  matthew shears:we have not prescribed how the board seats would be determined but rather left it to teach community to detemine their representation

  Andrew Sullivan:It's not obvious that, e.g. IETF wants to join this kind of arrangement in the first place

  Andrew Sullivan:My point is that the subsidiary org could be done independently by ICANN

  Milton Mueller:Andrew: but not also obvious that they dont

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Andrew, if the subsidiary org is done independently, doesn't that then fit this solution into the 'external' to icann category?

  Andrew Sullivan:I actually don't care whether we call it internal, external, or Bob the Wonder Dog.  I am interested in something that will provide a structure that achieves the goal

  Andrew Sullivan:It seems to me that there are many people who want a clear delineation between the pilicy function and the implementers of that

  Andrew Sullivan:I think that a wholly-owned subsidiary that did the operational work would be good

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:Under the SSA, it is org wholly owned and directly accountable to the policy authorities via the Community Board

  Andrew Sullivan:(Not required, from my POV, but one nice way to do it.)  The key thing in my own view is that anything that requires tight co-ordination among the three communities is not going to be successful

  Andrew Sullivan:there are _lots_ of people around the IETF who do not want a tight relationship to ICANN, and I think that negotiation would be hard to undertake

  Christopher Wilk:ISOC would have to carry the can for IETF, as they do already elsewhere. CW

  Milton Mueller:I understand this avoidance of tight coupling, however isnt it also true that keeping IANA inside ICANN involves a form of tightness for all the other operational communities?

  Andrew Sullivan:@Christopher: I don't understand that claim.  The IETF has mechanisms to appoint (e.g.) its current liaison to the ICANN board.

  Milton Mueller:in other words, seating people on a board with ICANN and having shared governance of IANA is actually more arm length than current arrangements from one perspective

  Andrew Sullivan:it doesn't involve ISOC

  Andrew Sullivan:"shared governance of IANA" involves us in IANA-facing disputes from the names community

  Andrew Sullivan:Whereas if we mantain the status quo for protocol parameters, we don't have that problem.  It's an ICANN-PTIANA problem

  matthew shears:CSC has the SLA day to day management for namesw community customers in the model

  Milton Mueller:Andrew, I don't see how it involves IETF in disputes from the names community, it would merely allow for cross-community issues (e.g. reserved names) to be coordinated more readily. what kind of disputes are you talking about ? 

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:@Andrew, not sure that would be a problem if IANA remains completely implementation, but perhaps IETF would be beneficial objective voice in those situations.

  Andrew Sullivan:@Milton: I'm not sure what disputes; there seems to be a lot of worry about accountability around here where

  Andrew Sullivan:AFAICT the IANA doesn't have accountability problems -- th probs are all on the policy side

  Seun Ojedeji:can you hear me

  Andrew Sullivan:The reserved-names case is a good example: that seems like a policy co-ordination problem

  Grace Abuhamad:No, are you muted on your end

  Milton Mueller:@andrew but IANA has been subject to NTIA oversight. it is not logical or not good institutional design to say that because there were few accountability problems with NTIA oversight that there will be no problems without that oversight

  Seun Ojedeji:i am not @Grace

  Grace Abuhamad:I'm am not sure what the issue is then Seun. We see your line as open... Can you work with Brenda to perhaps be redialed?

  Andrew Sullivan:The IANA co-ordination problem is a straightforward registry collision.  I agree that there is oversight that is necessary.  I just haven't seen a clear threat model that tells me what we're trying to defend against

  matthew shears:the model asks more of the ietf and RIRs than just a cusmtomer role but we flet it important to discuss here

  Andrew Sullivan:I understand why it asks more of those other communities.  I'm just trying to understand why we'd do it.

  Andrew Sullivan:That is, I get what's in it for names.  I don't get what's in it for anyone else. 

  Alissa Cooper:The whole discussion about additional involvement from the IETF/RIRs in oversight seems like a distraction from trying to solve the core issue of contention before this group, which is where the oversight of the names function will end up on the internal-to-external spectrum.

  Milton Mueller:@Andrew - it extracts IANA functions from entanglement with DNS policy

  Sivasubramanian M:Thank you Avri.  On your answer to the second question, I got the impression that you were viewing CSC more as a Customer Support function, to be given imporrance.  CSC as we have discusssed in the proposals is more of a Customer Access ( or oversight by Customers ) concept.  The nature of IANA fucntions is such that the impact of IANA functionality is significant on its Customers.  So, with the required privileges for interface WITH FUNCTIONAL and Executive STAFF, Customer Standing Committee could be positioned as a highly privileged Cusstomer Committee, but not as part of the hierarchy, but on the other side of the table, or somewehere along the IETF / RIR overssight, somewhat detached as in the Subsidiary model.

  Seun Ojedeji:okay since mic is not working i will post my questions here

  Andrew Sullivan:@Milton: but you could get that in the more modest suggestion I made on list.  I agree wit Alissa as well.

  Milton Mueller:@Alissa agree, but they are related because the more external you get the more it makes sense to have an independent IANA board, and an independent IANA board should probably involve numbers and protoclls

  Seun Ojedeji:- The ICANN in subsidiary version is what SO/AC?

  Seun Ojedeji:- Considering ICANN is signatory to all existing contracts/agreement what level of oversight does ICANN board have on community board?

  Seun Ojedeji:- How does "community board" handle IANA staff i.e does it for instance escalate to ICANN management who employs or sacks a staff?

  Seun Ojedeji:- Can the seperation intent in the subsidiary version be maintained without need for community board?If there is a name specific issue how does the community board decide on that?

  Milton Mueller:Jonathan: subsidiaries can have independently appointed boards.

  Christopher Wilk:Correct: the communities appoint the IANA Council/Board.

  Alissa Cooper:@Milton, that seems like a detail to be worked out after determining whether there is support even just among names stakeholders for the independent board, not the central issue to discuss before that is clear.

  Milton Mueller:@Alissa Yes, but Andrew brought it up

  Wale Bakare:I think, the proposed model without IETF and RIR, the protocol parameters and numbers may render name proposal one sided

  Milton Mueller:cant hear her

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Can Elise speak louder please?

  matthew shears:we have noted in the text that the community board can have more tha the operational communities represneted

  Alan Greenberg:No idea what Elise is saying. Can someone please summarize?

  Sivasubramanian M:Elise please repeat, louder please

  jorge cancio 2:in the end if the new IANA Board ony represents operational communities it would difficult to understand where the role and voice of governments is placed

  Donna Austin, RySG:so at a minimum a 9 member board?

  Milton Mueller:Jorge: As IANA does not make policy, it is not clear what you mean by "voice"? 

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Jorge: multistakeholder should include having other interested parties involved

  Milton Mueller:Also, govts or govt-owned ccTLDs could be part of the ICANN contingent on the board of IANA

  matthew shears:understood elise  and thanks

  Grace Abuhamad:Yes Seun we can hear you

  Seun Ojedeji:thanks Grace

  matthew shears:yes, we welcome thoughts comments suggestions

  jorge cancio 2:I guess this will need to be discussed - in order to obtain a balanced multistakeholder representation as Avri just said

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:To recap Avri, perhaps a MRT (with participation of government stakeholders) within ICANN could select representatives to a Community Board of indepdent IANA entity. Up to each community and their multistakehodler mechanisms.

  Andrew Sullivan:on this "accountability" argument, it seems to me that if people actually thought that sort of diversity were important then the PTI board could just appoint people of those diverse backgrounds

  Andrew Sullivan:s/PTI board could just appoint/people could just appoint to PTI board.  Sorry for misstatement.

  Milton Mueller:@Andrew agree, but also agree with Alissa that we should settle on level of external before those questions become relevant

  Donna Austin, RySG:I think once we get into discussion about the Board composition we start down the same road of discussions we've had about the MRT. Once the Board expands to make a place for everyone the risk of mission creep increases. I appreciate this may remove the need for a Contract Co, but I am not so sure that it brings us any closer on the other points. Adding the IEFT and the RIRs to the mix only has the potential to make it more complicated.

  Milton Mueller:Donna: My understanding is that the names part of the PTIANA board would be appointed exclusively by the names community

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:That was our assumption

  Seun Ojedeji:- The ICANN in subsidiary is what SO/AC? - Considering ICANN is signatory to all existing contracts/agreement what level of oversight does ICANN board have on community board?- How does "community board" handle IANA staff i.e does it for instance escalate to ICANN management who employs or sacks a staff? - Can the seperation intent in the subsidiary version be maintained without need for community board? - If there is a name specific issue how does the community board decide on that?

  Milton Mueller:No

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:THANK  YOU  @Avri, Brendan & Matthew

  Milton Mueller:Jonathan, how did you get that?

  Elise Lindeberg:honestly  - I have a hard time understanding how this bring us further on separaility ...

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:Actually, Jonathan many serious questions about the viability of the subsidiary model were raised.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Thanks @Avri, Matthew & Brendan - very interesting proposals

  Paul Kane:Evening all

  Milton Mueller:Elise: all variants involve structural separation of the IANA

  Carolina Aguerre:@Cheryl +1

  Christopher Wilk:Agree with Jonathan's summary to date. CW

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I must admit I personally feel warmer to this proposed model than the external Contract Co. model.

  Elise Lindeberg:structual is one thing - total separability in the end another

  Mary Uduma:Great job Avri, Brendan and Mathew. Some meeting points here for the work of CWG

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Agree TOTALLY there @Olivier

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:Glad we could help move the debate foward, happy to have more feedback on list.

  Alan Greenberg:Paul has faded

  Avri Doria:BTW, I am willing, as I am sure my partners in the effort are, to engage in follow on discussions with people who have more questions.

  Paul Kane:Wonderful - thanks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:great @Donna :-)

  Paul Kane:Will do our best

  Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO/RySG):am getting an echo

  Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO/RySG):will type

  Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO/RySG):i only have one line open

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:usually it's the audio picking up the sound from the computer's speaker

  Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO/RySG):my question is whether escalation path and SLAs are being addressed as the part of a single design team or as separate ones

  Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO/RySG):makes sense to me - thanks jonathan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Gree with CSC and IAP   as DT focusses for next couple of weeks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:along with SLAs

  Kurt Pritz:The authorization function is 99% of the NTIA oversight task; it needs a replacement

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Agree @ Kurt  but is it 1st cab off the rank?

  Greg Shatan:CSC and IAP were heavily discussed and progressed in RFP3, so there's already a lot to work with.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:still needs a DT @Greg

  Greg Shatan:Yes, @Cheryl, but to pick up where left off, not to reinvent wheel.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Jonathan, I'm willing to be involved in the CSC scoping.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO/RySG):could moving too far on IAP bar possible integration with mechanisms being discussed by the CCWG Accountability?

  Allan MacGillivray:I would be willing to get involved in the IAP.

  Greg Shatan:I will volunteer for CSC and IAP teams.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:then we agre with the 1st priority of them @Greg

  Kurt Pritz:An authorization replacement is required in the rare event that there is governmental or public protest to a legitimate change. The replacement’s most important role will be to approve legitimate changes despite pressure to do otherwise. The root zone change management role is relatively simple and easy to accomplish. The benefit the USG has provided is to act as a backstop to IANA decisions when there is controversy. A replacement dedicated to the multi-stakeholder approach is the best model for retaining the backstop.

  Greg Shatan:I think the first question for IAP is scope.

  Alan Greenberg:For the IAP, a key issue is WHAT are the Appeals about?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed @Alan

  Greg Shatan:We 3 are in violent agreement.

  Greg Shatan:I can be lead on CSC or IAP (but not both...).

  Robert Guerra:legacy issues - .INT and perhaps other items ?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Happy to assist in CSC

  Alan Greenberg:Other that IANA failing to follow a request from one of its customers, and failing to resolve when it is pointed out, I am not sure there is a lot more to appeal.

  Greg Shatan:@Robert, I think that can be in the queue, but there may be nothing to do ti that case.

  Greg Shatan:Queue = funnel.

  Sivasubramanian M:Greg, It is necessary to define the scope of the IAP, but at the same time, not  making the process of definining scope a Limiting process

  Greg Shatan:By definition, scope is a limiting process.

  Sivasubramanian M:I wish to volunteer for IAP design

  Alan Greenberg:I will be offline for a good part of the next 3 weeks, so I am not volunteering at this stage. Sorry.

  Greg Shatan:@Alan, some proposals for IAP scope had quite a lot more in mind....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:there will be plenty on when your back online @Alan

  Greg Shatan:your = you're :-)

  Alan Greenberg:@Greg, yes, but further discussions either removed them (such as ccTLD redelegation from some ccTLD's perspective) or were actually appeals of things prior to them getting to IANA.

  Alan Greenberg:Greg = pedantic!  ;-)

  Greg Shatan:@Alan -- I hope that is understood by all.

  Greg Shatan:@Alan, I will take that as a compliment.

  Greg Shatan:Having been employed as a professional proofreader (twice), old habits die hard.

  Allan MacGillivray:Jonathan - is it expected that the CWG members would be in Istanbul on the 25

  Jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):I 'm afraid I have too manu commitments that week (and already booked non-refundable fligts etc. to Dallas). I'll check for possible replacemants

  Grace Abuhamad:Please remember that alternates need to be current partipants of the CWG and be approved by SO/AC

  Robert Guerra:meeting coincides with IETF meeting, which is puzzling

  Jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Yup, I noticed that condition

  Grace Abuhamad:Thank you @Jaap

  Robert Guerra:Jaap & I will coordinate on possible alternate

  Seun Ojedeji:thanks

  Seun Ojedeji:bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thanks all talk again soon... bye for now

  Lise Fuhr:Thank you  Avri and Jonathan very productive

  Andrew Sullivan:thanks & bye

  Mary Uduma:Bye All

  Robert Guerra:bye all

  Elise Lindeberg:thanks :)

  jorge cancio:bye

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:Thanks all

  Wale Bakare:thanks, bye all

  Desiree Miloshevic:bye

  Grace Abuhamad:Next meeting is on Thursday 26 February at 11:00 UTC

  Jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):bye

  Sivasubramanian M:bey

  Sivasubramanian M:Bye