Members:  Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Elise Lindeberg, Fatima Cambronero, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Robert Guerra, Seun Ojedeji, Staffan Jonson   (13)

Participants:  Alan Greenberg, Andrew Sullivan, Brenden Kuerbis, Christopher Wilkinson, Gary Campbell, Gary Hunt, John Poole, Jorge Cancio, Keith Davidson, Kurt Pritz, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Stephanie Duchesneau, Steve Crocker, Suzanne Woolfe, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben   (18)

Staff:  Adam Peake, Bart Boswinkel, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings, Theresa Swinehart

Apologies:  Allan MacGillivray, Erick Iriarte, Eduardo Diaz, Jonathan Robinson

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

Proposed Agenda: 

1. Opening Remarks 

2. Final Review of Design Team Method 

3. Review scope of DTA and DTB and launch

4. Review Structure of CWG Proposal v2.0

5. Update on Client Committee work

6. Discuss Principles – Path Forward

7. AOB

8. Closing Remarks


1. Opening Remarks 

  • No outstanding action items
  • No longer RFP subgroups
  • DT groups will work 
  • Working on getting legal advice 

2. Final Review of Design Team Method 

3. Review scope of DTA and DTB and launch

  • Service Levels Expectations (lead: Paul Kane)
  • IAP (lead: Allan MacGillivray)
  • CSC (lead: Donna Austin)
  • Each team will have its own mailing list which will be publically archived 

SLE Team

  • Paul Kane: SLE group will review the status quo 
  • 3 gTLD reps: Jeff Eckhaus; Jeff Neuman; and Elaine Prius.
  • 3 ccTLD reps: Jay Daley, (AP Region), Patricio Poblete (LAC Region) and Paul Kane (Europe)
  • IANA staff and SSAC can provide liaisons but that may need to be handled privately  
  • First slide is data taken from IANA site
  • IANA service is efficient when it comes to sending NTIA requests (when NTIA is removed, the delay is removed)
  • Deliverable (part 1): Identify IANA workflow process and document it 
  • At the moment the group is not looking at how SLAs will be amended in the future. 

IAP Team

  • Allan MacGillivray sends his apologies (Lise will present for him)
  • Team includes: Maarten Simon and Elise Lindeberg 
  • Action: Would like an additional GAC person 

CSC Team

  • Donna Austin will lead
  • Staffan Jonson has volunteered
  • Action: Scope document produced before next meeting

4. Review Structure of CWG Proposal v2.0

  • sent out prior to meeting last Thursday, but many commented that they required more time to review
  • now that time has passed, are there any questions?
  • Still possible to send in proposals for DTs (and scoping document please)

5. Update on Client Committee work

Update from Greg Shatan

  • Over the course of past several days, the Committee met with the 3 shortlisted firms
  • In each case, the corporate governance expert was the main focus/team lead
  • Had debrief call on Monday afternoon (John Jeffrey; Sam Eisner; Kevin Espinola from ICANN were there but reclused themselves from decisions)
  • Front runner has emerged, and focus is now on 'nuts&bolts' of engagement: 1) matching the need for public and transparent process; and 2) structure of fee relationship, engagement letter, etc. 
  • Greg is checking with firms before releasing names of firms
  • All firms understand political situation in DC
  • No firm budget but the idea is to manage this in a cost-effective way
  • End of this week or early next week for engagement

6. Discuss Principles – Path Forward

Presented by Martin. 

  • Review of gii - currently two options. CWG to identify whether there is a strong preference for or objection to either option. 
  • Action: Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin
  • Review of evi - 
  • For the remaining items, probably easiest to start at top of document go through open comments from group
  • Action: Stephanie to put forth wording proposal for multistakeholder text

7. AOB & Review of Action Items

  • Action: Chairs will get back to group with DT list and priorities
  • Action: Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team
  • Action: Scope document produced before next meeting
  • Action: Call for volunteers to join DTs
  • Action: Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin
  • Action: Stephanie to put forth wording proposal for multistakeholder text

8. Closing Remarks

Next call is Thursday at 11:00 UTC. 

Action Items

  • Action: Chairs will get back to group with DT list and priorities
  • Action: Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team
  • Action: Scope document produced before next meeting
  • Action: Call for volunteers to join DTs
  • Action: Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin
  • Action: Stephanie to put forth wording proposal for multistakeholder text


Transcript CWG IANA #25 03 March.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #25 03 March.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented

CWG - Draft Transition Plan V2.0 updated.pdf

CWG Design Teams - Step by Step Process - Final.pdf

Design Team - IAP - 1 March 2015.pdf

Design Team - Service Level Expectations - 28 Feb.pdf

Draft of Principles - updated 3 March.pdf

Chat Transcript

  Gary Campbell:Hi Grace, Brenda

  Brenda Brewer:Good Day!  Welcome the the CWG Stewardship Meeting #25.

  Brenda Brewer:Hi Gary!

  Seun Ojedeji:Hello Everyone

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Hi all

  Lise Fuhr:Hi from DK

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:can I check audio, please?

  Mary Uduma:Hello All

  Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone

  Andrew Sullivan:Hi all.  I've joined the call.

  Robert Guerra:(Allan G. and I are an another call. we'll be coming here shortly)

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Someone is not muted

  Robert Guerra:Olivier, allan G & myself will be joining shortly..

  Staffan Jonson:Hi all

  Robert Guerra:hi all

  jaap akkerhuis:Hi all

  jorge cancio GAC:hi all!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:I'm in the adobe room, but can't talk!

  Staffan Jonson:I'm in both audio and Adobe, but will go away for audio only in a while

  Grace Abuhamad:

  Paul Kane:I'm here

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Great, thanks

  Sivasubramanian M:Have noticed a peculiar problem, when I receive a dial out on my andorid phone, it interferes with Internet. Happened a few times

  Seun Ojedeji:huge background noise

  Marika Konings:Paul, you are very faint

  Seun Ojedeji:better now :)

  Sivasubramanian M:May be something to do with dual sim settings, on my phone INternet is on one sim,  voice is on another, so when there is a voice call inwards, the other sim with Internet is blocked. Google / adobe need to do some work on that

  Seun Ojedeji:@SM its a phone thing...i  do get that

  Kurt Pritz:One purpose of the SLE team should be to determine the process / procedures by which  that  SLEs/SLAs are amended in the future.

  Seun Ojedeji:2 quetions: where is the discussion of DT happening? secondly is there a plan to set minimum period that a DT outcome will be left for discussion among the CWG?

  Steve Crocker:Measuring both mean and median is almost always wrong.  In this particular situation, the median is the relevant measure.  NTIA didn't listen at the time this detail was discussed and simply demanded both.  It means they don't understand what's relevant.  I would hope that post transition the reporting requirements are simplified to just what's actually useful.

  Steve Crocker:Standard deviation is related to mean.  Eliminate measurement of the mean and you should also drop the standard deviation.  If you want something akin to standard deviation, include other percentiles, e.g. 90th percentile.

  Lise Fuhr:@Seun the lists of the DTs will be published after this meeting

  Lise Fuhr:@Seun no period set yet but will be published in good time before and discussed at the CWG call

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW):Lost sound, @Paul

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay Lise, thanks for the feedback

  Andrew Sullivan:@Steve: I agree with what you say, although getting the mean is practically free so there's no reason not to do it. 

  Andrew Sullivan:But I don't think we should make any change at all to the metrics as part of the transition

  Andrew Sullivan:let's just transition what we have, then figure out how to change it, if desirable, afterwards

  Andrew Sullivan:[BTW, chairs, none of this needs be in the call -- this side window discussion is fine with me]

  Steve Crocker:@Andrew, yes, it's easy to compute, but that's not the only cost.  It's useless noise but most readers will not immediately recognize that fact, so it causes distraction.  Also, it clutters up the presentation.  And it reinforces a misunderstanding.  But I could be accused of being pedantic :)

  Andrew Sullivan:@Steve: I would not accuse you of being pedantic on this topic, as I guess you know!

  Brenda Brewer:We are working to join Paul by phone.

  Staffan Jonson:Yepp

  Steve Crocker:Yes, this is not an essential issue with one big exception.  I consider it important that poor practices in the past not be continued just because that's what NTIA did.  NTIA's administration of the relationship should not be considered to be the gold standard.  We absolutely need to be able to fix pieces that have long been broken.  The clutter of measurements is the least important of the brokenness, but it's a useful example.

  Andrew Sullivan:@Steve: if what you're saying is that post-transition one should not be able to use the "but that's how we've always done it" as a reason to continue doing something, I'm in agreement.  If what you're saying is that we should use this chance to tidy things up, I guess I'd say that I'd be much more enthusiastic if it were last fall  Given how late it is (and how late this proposal is), I think any thing -- I mean anything -- that we can shed is something we should shed.

  Sivasubramanian M:question:  How exactly is RFP 4 reconsituted ?  What are the design teams that would work on Transition implications>

  Steve Crocker:@Andrew.  Agreed.  The key issue is that post transition we need proper mechanisms for making adjsutments.  Discussion of specific adjustments can come later.

  Sivasubramanian M:What are the design teams to work on Transition Implciation?  Are are they yet to be proposed?

  Sivasubramanian M:Thank you

  Brenda Brewer:Paul Kane has joined the phone line now.

  Sivasubramanian M:Thank you Cheryl

  Matthew Shears:Avri and I are in a room at UNESCO - she is trying to join as well

  Steve Crocker:"No great importance3 should be attributed to mean, mode or median" is a good example of the no-nothingness that comes from including the extraneous measures.  In fact, the median is indeed relevant; the others are not.

  Steve Crocker:In additoon to median, there should be additional stats on other percentiles, e.g. 90th percentile, 75th percentile, etc.

  jaap akkerhuis:IANA set during their presentation in Singpore that question about missing information take often very long before andwers come

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Those require a bit more statistical knowledge to understand, but I think we can assume that for those that this is relevant, have that knowledge

  Kurt Pritz:There is a meaningful use to ?mean" also.. Consider: (1) If we employ only median and a percentile as the only SLAs; (2) IANA has a "tough case" that exceeds the median; (3) then the SLA provides no incentive for IANA to work hard to close the tough case; (4) a mean score would continue to provide that incentive

  Grace Abuhamad:I've unsynced so that you can scroll through the different slides

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:will the slides be made available?

  jorge cancio GAC:thanks to Paul Kane for that info!

  Grace Abuhamad:I'll post the slides to the Wiki after this call

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:thanks Grace!

  Steve Crocker:@Kurt: I understand your point, but using mean is too weak of an instrument to provide the incentive you're suggesting.  Using other percentiles is better.  Asking for detailed explanations for every case beyond a specific threshold, i.e. treating it as an incident, would be far stronger.

  Sivasubramanian M:Question:   As a person with a non-technical background, I am finding it difficult to understand what could possibly go wrong with IANA operarations, in the context of a process such as IAP.  It is a basic question, but is it likely that the IANA operator would act in a manner that is partial to a gTLD / ccTLD or a nation state ?

  Sivasubramanian M:Is it conceivable that either ICANN or Verisign would act impartically?

  Berry Cobb:PPT just sent to list.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Greg: I think the RA has a 7 day requirement for IANA changes but would need to confirm.

  Sivasubramanian M:Supplemantary:   If IANA does not make policy, and the IANA Operator merely implements ICANN policy.,  what possible deviations could occur between policy and implemenation, so much so that an elaborate judicial process such as an IAP is required?

  Sivasubramanian M:We need a IAP and an elaborate Judicial process for ICANN, none for IANA

  Sivasubramanian M:i.e  a lighter process for IANA

  Andrew Sullivan:I have to agree with S.M.

  Seun Ojedeji:FWIW i am also of same opinion with SM

  Matthew Shears:Siva your argument for not having an IAP assumes an internal model which we have not yet agreed on

  Donna Austin, RySG:Greg: To what extent is cost a factor in the decision making?

  Seun Ojedeji:But since IAP is not going to be standing maybe its not something to worry much about

  Seun Ojedeji:@Matthew i don't think the CCWG would come up with an internal IAP (if they find they need such). Its supposed to be independent so i don't think the solution matters here

  Matthew Shears:Greg - when do you realistically expect that a decision will be made and when after that wil the responses be available?

  Kurt Pritz:At what stage will there be an estimate of costs? Or was there a budget established beforehand?

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Mathew  Internal model or otherwise,  why do we need a elaborate judicial process for lapses that are merely technical or operational?

  Sivasubramanian M:If IANA does not make policy and if there are technical lapses, what we require are merely corrections managed by management, not an Arbitration process

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay thanks Greg

  Matthew Shears:I hope that the counsel will be available for questions that arise as our discussions go forward

  Matthew Shears:not just a one off

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 Matthew - I think there should be some "time" possible with the lawyer, remote participation, during our F2F

  Lise Fuhr:@Matthews the intention is to have questions along the way

  Seun Ojedeji:It will be good to have something substantial at least 1 week before Istanbul

  Lise Fuhr:Sorry for the extra s @Matthew

  Matthew Shears::)

  Seun Ojedeji:@Olivier i would even prefer meeting the lawyers before F2f

  Seun Ojedeji:From experience, it will really be good to be clear on the goal of the F2F before setting on the 2 days journey

  Donna Austin, RySG:Apologies all, I have to drop off the call.

  Matthew Shears:We should be doing minimal changes to tis considering the discussions we have already had and finalize it

  Lise Fuhr:OK goodbye Donna

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:agree Matthew

  jorge cancio GAC:audio is low

  Greg Shatan:I think some of these phrases are rather loaded -- good luck on getting a consensus....

  Greg Shatan:Is it possible to tie "national sovereignty" to the status quo, so that we are not making a change by referencing "national sovereignty"?

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW):regarding principles about appeals, that is a very fiine distinction. One person's decision to implement a NO, could be another person's decision to take a policy decision to block a new gTLD. There are  policy aspects to most of this transition.

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW):> CCWG , OK.

  Matthew Shears:we are having audio issues and cannot follow the discussion on the principles doc

  Greg Shatan:My audio seems fine.

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW):Indeed. I have to adjust the volume for each speaker ...

  Lise Fuhr:@Martin 3 minutes left

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:thanks Martin :)

  Matthew Shears:Martin - will send you some commentss on the principles - thanks

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:I will ask in the GAC for one more on IAP

  Greg Shatan:I would like to volunteer for the CSC group.

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW):AOB I am not ready to discuss DT I and J. Next time. I am not sure that we need both I and J.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@ matthew: thanks

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:happy top

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye... Thanks all...

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:thanks all

  Staffan Jonson:thank you bye

  jaap akkerhuis:by all

  Sivasubramanian M 2:Thanks All, Bye

  jorge cancio GAC:bye all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:thanks, bye all

  Andrew Sullivan:good bye all

  Steve Crocker:Goodbye everyone

  Seun Ojedeji:Bye

  Gary Hunt UK Govt.:Good bye all!

  • No labels