IANA CWG Meeting #24 (26 February)

---

Notes

Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect room. 

1. Opening Remarks

Objective is to:

• Developing a functional, implementable and complete plan 
• A focus on the functional requirements of any part of the plan 

Request to add discussion of ICG meeting under AOB concerning level of implementation detail needed, as well as Larry Strickling's comments in this regard during the hearing. 

 

2.    Draft Proposal & Design Teams

-       Review of Draft Proposal

See V2.0 circulated to the mailing list. In a form to be submitted to the ICG as a response to the RFP, mirroring the format of other proposals submitted to date. To be used as a map for future work of the CWG on the path to a final proposal. 

Action item: CWG to review draft proposal v2.0. 

-       Design Teams

 

Updated version circulated on 26/2. This version includes a proposed process life cycle of a design team. Co-chairs closely involved in the review and sign-off of each proposal to ensure co-ordination and organization of the work. Design team's work to be incorporated eventually in the draft proposal. All work of design teams will first come back to the full CWG for review and discussion. 

 

Design teams need to consider work that has already been undertaken. Participation can also be from individuals that are currently not members or participants of the CWG. To be qualified to join a design team, candidates must be committed and have relevant expertise. DT lead to be a member/participant of the CWG to ensure co-ordination with work that has already been carried out. Regular updates to be provided by the DT to the full CWG. 

 

Candidates to join a DT are expected to express their interest by writing to the DT lead as well as the full CWG, providing their statement of interest as well as qualification for the design team. Board and/or staff participation are not precluded. Chairs review of candidates and potential limitation of numbers is to ensure balance and ability to be able to move forward quickly. 

 

Ideally an example of a completed template would be shared so that it is easier to assess the level of detail that is required / expected.

 

Further information is available at https://community.icann.org/x/pAknAw  

 

SLA Design Team (Lead: Paul Kane)

Early days, trying to get DT going. Three volunteers with operational experience have been put forward by the RySG. Similarly three volunteers are expected from the ccTLD community. In addition, a member from SSAC has been identified.

DT to review and describe current function, including measuring metric. Once that document is completed it will be shared with the broader group to ensure that nothing is missed. Consult with IANA staff concerning what is currently provided in performance reports and ensure that timings are revelvant. Identify the escalation path in case of non-compliance. 

 

IAP Design Team (Lead: Alan MacGillivray)

Not yet submitted a proposal, expected later today

CCWG looking at appeal and redress, DT work needs to be complementary to that effort. CCWG will not deal with the issue of ccTLD delegation / re-delegation, so this may be the initial focus of the DT; what are the particular needs of the ccTLD community for an appeals mechanism. 

 

CSC Design Team (Lead: Donna Austin - tentatively)

Other DT for which template needs to be developed. 

 

Build up pipeline of other potential DT. Develop list of those DT templates that have already been submitted.

 

Action item: 

Need to get scope in writing for all DT as well as membership which is to be shared with the full CWG.

Develop list of all DT proposed and templates submitted. 

Chairs to confirm during next meeting which DT are active and which ones are in the funnel

 

3.    Discussion Document Feedback 

Discussion document was shared with the community prior in Singapore which included a number of questions which were discussed during the Q & A session in Singapore and for which input has been submitted from a number of groups to date. This input is being compiled into one document for review by the CWG. The completed version is expected to be shared with the mailing list later today.  

Action item:  CWG encouraged to review completed version after it is shared on the mailing list

 

5.    AOB

Legal Advice Update

• Update provided by Greg to the mailing list earlier this week. Client committee meeting with the 3 candidate firms in the next couple of days. Results of those meetings will be shared with the CWG. Advice is expected to be an itterative and collaborative process. Pieces of such advice would hopefully be received within a week of formally engaging the firm, which may happen within a week or so. To consider how to most effectively engage with the firm and CWG. 

Action item: any input to the client committee to be shared with the mailing list. 

Proposal detail ref. ICG / DC hearings

• No clarity from ICG call on how much detail is needed / required. Remarks from Larry Strickling may need to be reviewed in this contexts and further clarification sought from the ICG. Also ensure that expectations of SO/ACs are met as proposal will first need to be considered by the chartering organizations. 

SSAC 69

• Outstanding action item from Singapore; small group to review this document.
• Consider a design team to ensure that proposal is consistent with SSAC 69. 

Action Items

Action item: CWG to review draft proposal v2.0. 

Action item: Need to get scope in writing for all DT as well as membership which is to be shared with the full CWG.

Action item: Chairs to revise design team process proposal based on feedback received ensuring that these are lightweight and do not create unnecessary bureaucracy

Action item: Develop list of all DT proposed and templates submitted. 

Action item: Chairs to confirm during next meeting which DT are active and which ones are in the funnel

Action item: CWG encouraged to review completed version of discussion document feedback tool after it is shared on the mailing list

Action item: any input to the client committee to be shared with the mailing list. 

Action item: reminder, confirmations for in person attendance to F2F meeting is needed by Monday, 2 March. 

. 

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #24 26 FEB.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #24 26 FEB.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7ow7dqa2s6/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-26feb15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

Marika Konings:Welcome to meeting #24 of the CWG-IANA Stewardship Transition

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hi

  James Gannon:Morning/Evening All

  Bart Boswinkel:Good day alll

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):Hi all

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

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Allan - mute

  Greg Shatan:Good morning, he said, darkly.

  Avri Doria:my sounds seems broken.  i have to reboot.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Hi all

  Maarten Simon, SIDN:Hi

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Is my sound broken too or is no one saying anything?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Ah:  yes there is!

  James Gannon:Nice crisp early start greg =) (Forgive my terrible IANA/RIR pun)

  Chris Disspain:Hi all...I am on another call so lurking in adobe until that is finished

  Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone

  matthew shears:morning

  James Gannon:Morning Steve

  Brenden Kuerbis:Good morning all

  Wale Bakare:Morning all

  Mary Uduma:Good afternoon all.

  Erick Iriarte:good morning all

  James Gannon:Seems effective to me

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):I really didn;t had time to have a look at the draft

  matthew shears:just seeing the doc for the first time how does it account for the broader discussion of internal external and other models?

  Lise Fuhr:@matthews this is not to be included yet. We are preparing the areas that can be finished without this particular discussion

  James Gannon:I have no mic (Mobile atm) so I will type, while I understand the reasoning behind the level of management, is there concerns about it being pervieved as exclusive in the membership of the design teams and that the design proposals will bnot be included by consessus but rather than by the choice of the co-chairs (Need to be mindful of how this will be percieved externally)

  matthew shears:ok thanks

  James Gannon:I totally understand, but I think we need to possibily pre-manage critisisms of the process when it comes to consesus and exclusivity, possibily some lines in the document we have in front of us about the reasoning and justification for this process and its methods

  Avri Doria:sorry to be late, had to restore.

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):Sound is not stable.

  James Gannon:I've lost Johnanthans audio

  James Gannon:breasking up

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes hi audio is chppy

  Alan Greenberg:universal

  Lise Fuhr:yes audio is bad

  Avri Doria:many of us

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:choppy at ttimes

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:it is intermittent. Fine now

  James Gannon:I'll read the response on the transcript thanks Johnathan

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:breaking up NOW

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:unintelligible

  Mary Uduma:Breaking up

  James Gannon:Yeah I cant hear anything now.

  Alan Greenberg:sound gone

  matthew shears:sound is gone

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:We can her you well Lise

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:so it's Jonathan's line

  Avri Doria:we hear you well

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:yes

  James Gannon:Perfectly

  James Gannon:yup

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Should be on a Wiki as well

  James Gannon:If staff could have a wiki will links to active teams and links to their mailing lists and members etc

  Brenda Brewer:We are calling Jonathan.  He will be with us shortly

  matthew shears:+ 1 Olivier

  Marika Konings:there is already a wiki page available: https://community.icann.org/x/pAknAw

  Marika Konings:we'll create new tabs for design teams as they are being created / approved

  Marika Konings:the list is at the bottom of the page

  Marika Konings:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52890020/CWG-DesignTeamList.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1424853601000&api=v2

  Marika Konings:which is the example list that was shared earlier

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:yes but my point is that example list is not up to date.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 @Greg

  Marika Konings:we'll get this information posted on the wiki asap

  James Gannon:Yes much better Johnathan

  Marika Konings:but we are awaiting the completed templates in order to do so

  James Gannon:OK need to let poor Marika knoabout that then :P

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Excellent @Jonathan - could we have a list of the Team soon please?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Time is of the essence

  James Gannon:yes

  Erick Iriarte:yes

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Marika, I have submitted the information required by the template.

  Marika Konings:Thanks, Greg. We can create a page for those templates that have been submitted and then separate pages for those DT that are approved & active.

  Lise Fuhr:@Olivier we will make a list available as soon as possible

  James Gannon:Can we have the list infromation aswell for the SLA design team

  David Conrad:would staff and/or board welcome as participants on the design team or is the intent that they be consulted afterwards?

  Mary Uduma:Audio bad, breaking up

  Paul Kane:David - yes plan is to consult with IANA staff

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@ David I believe the most important part of all this work is that it comes back to Committee of the whole for any discussion/decision

  Paul Kane:Cheryl +1

  David Conrad:@paul: so, the consultation is post completion of the design team work?

  Paul Kane:David During ...

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):I I still would welcome drc if the design team looks at the current situation

  David Conrad:ok, thanks

  Paul Kane:Paperwork will come ealy next week - I need to draft it over the w/end

  Avri Doria:desgin teams design

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Losing audio again

  James Gannon:fine here

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:fine here too

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):FIne to me.

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):audio is fine

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Maybe a problem in the frozen north only.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:For SLAs I thik we do need to have IANA input during

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bits travel slower in the cold

  Donna Austin, RySG:I agee with Martin

  James Gannon:If the board members/staff has experience relevant then I would see no reason not to have them participate. Same as any othe stakeholder they should be welcomed.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Exactly  Thanks Jinathan

  Paul Szyndler:@PaulKane - I note that ICANN's technical proposal in response to the NTIA's call for proposals is most useful r.e. metrics. - First part at: https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-1-31may12-en.pdf 

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Jonathan sorry about the typos

  Donna Austin, RySG:Thank you Cheryl

  Paul Kane:@PaulS - Yes - I have already been in contact with IANA RZM Staff and they have been very helpful

  matthew shears:is it preferable that the design teams focus on elements of the proposal doc?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:So that thank you is a yes you will take the lead ?  Excellent  than you @Donna :-)    I note a few people had already indicated their interest in being In this DT

  Avri Doria:and is all wrk no in a formal DT stopped.  how do we move on with other stuff.  or do we just halt?

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):The result of a design team is public so also who has been active. Can we just get over this point?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Sorry for not catching that point earlier in this process, but a we know, there's nothing like implementation to expose the issues in a proposal.

  Andrew Sullivan:I agree with Jaap

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Jaap, that was not my point.

  Allan MacGillivray:Is it quiet

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):My point goes to how they are put together in the first place.

  Steve Crocker:FWIW, our use of the term "design team" is quite different from the IETF's definition of a design team.  In the IETF, desing teams are formed by small groups that come together on their own to prepare a proposal.  There is no vetting or chartering process, and membership by selef-selection.  Multiple design teams covering the same ground are quite permissible.  Proposals from design teams come to the full working group, which is where issues get sorted out.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I think that the last sentence of Steve's note must apply equally to our design teams.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):If not, we need to discuss that quickly.

  James Gannon:@Greg I think that goes to my point about consensus and exclusivity concerns around the managment of the design team process.

  Suzanne Woolf:Greg, I don't see why this is a problem. I can't imagine anyone in this group not keeping design teams accountable for producing results that will be publicly vetted.

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):We did start with the IETF notion of a design team but are now ratholing on the organistion (s usual). No actual progress has been made u to now

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I take nothing for granted.

  Steve Crocker:"Management of the design team process" directly conflicts with the basic notion of a design team in the IETF arena.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I don't think we have hit the "rathole" level.  Yet.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:WE could call the Drafting Teasms  if needs be

  James Gannon:Sorry johnathan but the guidelines document doesnt have any refence to the CWG it only refers to the co-chairs assessing the design teams.

  Avri Doria:Greg, you don't think we have reached rathole?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Swirling around it, but not completely sucked in.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Understood  and THANKS  Donna

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Checking specifications before commencing build not a rathole.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Flogging specs and never building is a rathole.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):It's a Question of Balance.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):NB: Moody Blues not in Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  Why not?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:3 design Teams? No I have seen 4 so far

  James Gannon:Greg one for IP

  James Gannon:that seems to have been forgoteen =)

  Lise Fuhr:we need to start with a small amount

  Lise Fuhr:of Design teams

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):But the queue is not limited by amount.

  Allan MacGillivray:Is the DT on the 'authorization function' been started?

  James Gannon:Limit the number working but not limit the number of DTs being scoped and planned I thought?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:but I am very eager to get the ball rolling ASAP.

  Avri Doria:so no work other than in DTs?

  Suzanne Woolf:Olivier +1

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):"Proposals from design teams come to the full working group, which is where issues get sorted out."

  James Gannon:Partcularly the wehole CWG work such as the internal/external debate

  Avri Doria:ok, just trying to figure out how to take the model work further.

  James Gannon:I would think thats work thats at a level its whole CWG work

  Suzanne Woolf:Isn't the hope that having work done in the design teams allows better evaluation of the issues for the CWG-wide issues such as determining which model applies and refining for best fit?

  Jonathan Robinson:@Suzanne - potentially yes. But much of the work is "bite-sized" chunks of incremental & well-scoped progress

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):Yes, that was the idea

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:easy to read since the window can be maximised and we all have scroll/zoom control

  Suzanne Woolf:@Jonathan: I for one remain hopeful that looking closely at the work we actually have to do (per my email to the list about separating accountability questions, etc.) will let us focus more productively on those larger questions.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:+++ to that @Suzanne

  James Gannon:+1 Suzanne

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Suzanne, I share that hope.  Better definition/understanding of trees = clarity on the nature of the forest..

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Thanks for this @Berry very helpful

  Paul Kane:Clarification - it is ccTLD Community not ccNSO.  Many ccTLDs arfe NOT members of the ccNSO for good reason

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Congratulations to @Berry on a very good document indeed. Some excellent ongoing work there

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I am very eager to see the completed product

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed @Olivier

  Lise Fuhr:@Paul Kane noted that it is ccTLDs

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@ Paul:  will the survey respondents identities be public?

  Suzanne Woolf:@Greg, agreed, but we're seeing a slightly different level of need to specify in advance. Which is fine, but I hope the DTs can get started in parallel at least.

  Berry Cobb:Thank you Paul for the clairification.  My apologies for mis-charachterization.

  Brenden Kuerbis 2:@Berry: NCSG will be providing our input by tomorrow

  Avri Doria:NCSG is trying to finish its submission

  Berry Cobb:and mis-spelling.  ;-)

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):Regarding competition and conflict of interest design team, I have replied to the List cc:Chuck Gomes.

  Berry Cobb:@OCL, I will make that change.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Berry thanks -

  Avri Doria:Though knowing ow he would combat Commuity control would be a useful stress test.

  Chris Disspain:@Greg - what is your best guess on timing for receiving advice?

  Chris Disspain:@ Greg - acknowledged but presumably, at the end they will rpovide soething in writing that can be p[ublished and we can all read...

  Avri Doria:or at least join us on a call for Q&A

  Paul Kane:@ Martin - some respondents asked NOT to be identifed.  FYI, I did not submit a reply for the ccTLDs I am resonsible for so I can be impartial.  Duplicate entries and fake submissions were removed.

  Chris Disspain:@ Greg - understood - thanks!

  James Gannon:I think that the firm is willing and able to work in that manner should obv be a strong criteria for selection - understadning that sits slighly unorthodox

  James Gannon:Agreed.

  Alan Greenberg:My understanding was that the legal group was for selecting Counsel and that the WG weas the client, so I hope there will be substantial opportunity for the WG to be satisfied with the results.

  James Gannon:DId any of the firm express reservation/concern over the sentate hearings?

  Maarten Simon, SIDN:@james: no

  James Gannon:Thanks maarten, good to hear

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I am all for getting the DTs started quickly, and hope that the gestation process for each is short having clarified what that process is.

  John Poole:I sent in email to Mail List

  John Poole:I don't think it was responded to re legal committee

  John Poole:thanks Greg--take your time

  James Gannon:And I'd like to thank greg for taking the time to do this work for the CWG, its appreciated

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Good points @Jonathan

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Your email was received by me at 11:06 pm (8 hours ago).....  I did read it and tried to work in some responses in my remarks.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I will respond on the list as soon as I am able, consistent with other obligations.

  Grace Abuhamad:Please confirm your attendance for the F2F meeting by 2 March. The deadline is firm because we need to make logistical arrangements. Even if you are considering and still not sure, please give me a heads up.

  James Gannon:Deesign team work needs to kick off quick to make sure the impression isnt two steps forward (RFP3 work) and then 5 steps back - design teams, it can feel like the workl of rfp3 was somewhat discarded.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@James  for several of the DT's  the RFP work is foudational IMO

  Andrew Sullivan:The IETF proposal doesn't leave work to be done, because it's "keep doing what is happening".  How much more detail would be needed?

  James Gannon:@Cheryl I hope that thats the way that it goes, a lot of work was put into the rfp groups

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Typos *sigh*  I do wish we could correct chat in this tool :-(

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Yup @James

  James Gannon:I just dfont want us to reinvent the RFP wheel in the DTs

  David Conrad:i would observe that one difference between the naming portion and the numbers/protocol parameters portions is that the naming portion has much more operational involvement by NTIA.

  David Conrad:(stating the obvious)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@David  obvious  but important to state

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Note that Alissa Cooper, co-chair of the ICG, is now on (maternity?) leave until April, so the remaining co-chairs (Patrik and Muhammad)  need to be consulted.

  Suzanne Woolf:@David: names also has a time element that the others don;t. The SLA group will undoubtedly be addressing the fact that in names, unlike numbers or protocols, real harm can result from relatively small delays in processing

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1

  David Conrad:@suzanne, yep.  all of this probably suggests a higher level of detail than the other two components of the proposal

  Chris Disspain:face to face - yay!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Agreed @ David/Suzanne

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I do tend to agree that our level of detail can't be compared on a rote basis with the other two groups.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Another difference --  we are "more multistakeholder" than the other two communities.

  Grace Abuhamad:List is here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In+Person+Attendees

  Avri Doria:I would say differently multistakeholder, not more.

  Grace Abuhamad:oops wrong group

  Lise Fuhr:Thank you Jonathan

  Grace Abuhamad:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/In-Person+Attendees

  James Gannon:Thanks Johnathan, thanks all.

  Allan MacGillivray:Good day all.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Avri, perhaps.

  Andrew Sullivan:bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Thanks Jonathan good call... bye

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):bye

  jorge cancio GAC:bye

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Bye

  Erick Iriarte:bye

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:thanks & bye

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Good bye all.  The sun is now up!

  Wale Bakare:Bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:welcome to my world Greg I ften see sun rise in an ICANN call

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye