Members:  Avri Doria, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Elise Lindeberg, Erick Iriarte, Fatima Cambronero, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-LeBlond, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji   (15)

Participants:  Alan Greenberg, Andrew Sullivan, Brenden Kuerbis, Carolina Aguerre, Christopher Wilkinson, Chuck Gomes, Gary Campbell, Gary Hunt, Guru Acharya, Jari Arkko, Jorge Cancio, Leon Sanchez, Maarten Simon, Mark Carvell, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Milton Mueller, Philip Corwin, Robin Gross, Rudi Vansnick, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Stephanie Duchesneau, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben   (23)

Staff:   Alain Durand, Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings

Apologies: James Gannon, Allan MacGillivray

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

Proposed Agenda:

1. Opening Remarks

2. Proposal 2.2

3. Design Teams     

     a. Istanbul cut-off on Monday 18:00 UTC     

     b. Update on DT-A (Paul Kane)

     c. Update on DT-B (Allan MacGillivray)

     d. Update on DT-C (Donna Austin)

     e. Status of additional DTs (DT-D; DT-F; DT-L; DT-M; Red team; DT-N)

4. Principles

5. Update from Client Committee

6. AOB

     a. High Intensity 1-2 April 

7. Closing Remarks


Seun is on audio only

1. Opening Remarks

Great to see CWG embracing DT work

Need good sprint from now on (to finish developing the proposal)

2. Proposal 2.2

    • Chairs realize that there is an issue with the short notice with which documents are circulated (24h notice). This is due in part because of the fast pace of meetings and work. 
    • Would be great to include content from RFP subgroup work into the draft, specifically RFP4 and RFP5 that were led by Robert and Cheryl
    • Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis) 
    • Milton asks question about text in section III.A.1.1.
    • Jaap has indications that the numbers proposal is not detailed enough (heard in Singapore) 
    • Overarching question: Is CWG going in the right direction in terms of implementation detail?
    • Action: What is the origin of the text in v.2.2  section III.A.1.1 now and what guidance has NTIA &/or ICG already issued. 
    • Note (Milton): ICG has reviewed the numbers and protocols proposals and has not raised any questions about their level of detail)
    • Jari calls for all discussions on proposals to be public. ICG has discussed the 'level of detail' question
    • DT-L title could be changed to "separation mechanics" Staff note: DT-L had changed their title to 'IANA Functions - Transition Plan Actions' since the start of their work

3. Design Teams     

     a. Istanbul cut-off on Monday 18:00 UTC     

Action: All DTs aim to produce drafts for F2F by 18:00 UTC Monday

     b. Update on DT-A (Paul Kane)

    • This is the Service Level Expectations group. 
    • Will have document for comment/discussion in Istanbul 
    • Got statistics from TLDs about interactions with IANA (IANA is performing well and generally responsive within minutes). 
    • Group is working on documenting the status quo with real-world analysis
    • Difference between SLA and SLE: SLA requires two parties to proactively agree. If the 'internal' model is proposed, then there will not be two parties for the 'agreement'. The SLE sets a 
      threshold and standard for performance. Effect is the same. 
    • Where will group be at the end of the week? The document will be 80% concluded. The document is likely to be deficient on the issue where there are hostile assignements/reassignments. 
    • Need to consult with CWG to create exhaustive list of missing information / outstanding issues and formally ask NTIA for permission for IANA to release information

     c. Update on DT-B (Bart Boswinkel on behalf of Allan MacGillivray)

DTB will send survey to ccTLD community this week to determine whether an appeals mechanism is needed to address delegation/redelegation, and if so, what requirements are requested?

     d. Update on DT-C (Donna Austin)

    • Hope to have a draft available for discussion in Istanbul. 
    • IANA staff contact and NTIA staff contact have been identified (they are only present for clarification when requested by the group)

     e. DT-D (Cheryl Langdon-Orr)

    • Group has met minimum membership requirements and started to work through template document
    • It is DT-D's intention to have document ready by Monday deadline (at least for comment)

     f. DT-F (no lead)

Action: Call for volunteers and call for team lead

Suggestion from Milton to merge with DT-D. 

     g. DT-L (Matthew Shears on behalf of James Gannon)

    • Developed draft over past few days
    • Still open to volunteers

     h. DT-M (Chuck Gomes)

COMPLETE (Grace): Add Erick to the DT-M mailing list

     i. DT-N (Avri Doria)

Put together a basic template (open for comment on Google docs)

Action (staff): relocate periodic review function and assess where it fits in the Draft proposal

One of the purposes of working in DTs is to put the Function before the structure.

Requirement appears to be missing for periodic review of operational performance -- not sure if this is part of DT-N or not. 

Action (Staff): Add Red Team at end of DT list to to examine whether there are any issues with respect to meeting NTIA's criteria, particularly with respect to security and stability and 
prevention of capture. This is a particular form of stress testing

4. Principles

Greg raises issue on term used in footnote 1. 

--> "Unit" may be better term than "entity"

Discussion of 7.ii

Proposal from GAC was accepted by others who commented on this section, except for Paul Kane. Paul can talk us through on this call or provide new text. 

Action (Paul): send revised text to CWG for section 7.ii of the Principles

Action (Martin): complete discussion on Principles on mailing list (including 7.ii. and footnote 1)

5. Update from Client Committee

    • Mailing list composition has been modified to have Client Committee and Sidley only (posting rights). The rest will be observers (no posting rights)
    • Sidley should post to list regarding progress on FAQs

6. AOB

High Intensity 1-2 April -- placeholders will be sent in case needed

7. Closing Remarks

See you in Istanbul

Action Items

Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis) 

Action: What is the origin of the text in v.2.2  section III.A.1.1 now and what guidance has NTIA &/or ICG already issued. 

Action: All DTs aim to produce drafts for F2F by 18:00 UTC Monday

Action: Call for volunteers and call for team lead

COMPLETE (Grace): Add Erick to the DT-M mailing list

Action (staff): relocate periodic review function and assess where it fits in the Draft proposal

Action (Staff): Add Red Team at end of DT list to to examine whether there are any issues with respect to meeting NTIA's criteria, particularly with respect to security and stability 
and prevention of capture. This is a particular form of stress testing

Action (Paul): send revised text to CWG for section 7.ii of the Principles

Action (Martin): complete discussion on Principles on mailing list (including 7.ii. and footnote 1)


Transcript CWG IANA #29 17 March.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #29 17 March.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:


Documents Presented


Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer:Welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #29 on 17 March at 17:00 UTC.

  Milton Mueller:yep

  Milton Mueller:Hi, Grace

  Milton Mueller:I was early because I forgot about the daylight savings time disjoint between Europe and USA ;-(

  Grace Abuhamad:Yep -- it's going to be a bit odd for about a month

  Seun Ojedeji:Hello everyone

  Jonathan Robinson:Hello everyone. Clocks change here on 29th March.

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Super loud typing.

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):clackyety clack

  jorge cancio GAC:hello everyone

  Leon Sanchez:hello everyone

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hi all

  Matthew Shears:evenin!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi ... "morning" (0405) here in AU.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:OK noted  re RFP-5

  Grace Abuhamad:Milton can you repeat what section you are reffering to ?

  Matthew Shears:Yes, as a member of DT - L I was woindering the origin of that language and note

  Matthew Shears:as well

  Milton Mueller:Grace: III.A.1.1.

  Grace Abuhamad:Thanks

  Rudi Vansnick:for the information : i'm willing to join the drafting team F

  Milton Mueller:Did he say: Numbers proposal was not detailed enough?

  Grace Abuhamad:Thanks @ Rudi. Noted. And thanks for your email to the list

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:First line of abstract on p.4  refers to  Internet Number community - should be "names", no? Seeing this document is very reassuring on progress!

  Jari Arkko:I have NOT heard that, FWIW

  Andrew Sullivan:I did not hear from anyone that the IETF proposal is not detailed enough

  Andrew Sullivan:in SIN or anywhere else :)

  Jari Arkko:and I STRONGLY suggest we should not go on hearsay - if someone has issues - even NTIA - let those concerns be brought to a public discussion

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:I think the level of implementation required is still to be discussed at the ICG

  Milton Mueller:+1 to Jari and Andrew

  Avri Doria (gnso/ncsg):whatever the current facts, the stanadards should be the same for mnames as for numbers and protocols.

  Avri Doria (gnso/ncsg):excluding typos

  jorge cancio GAC:agree with Avri

  Milton Mueller:typos are acceptable in the names world ;-)

  Brenden Kuerbis:I think in any case, the _question_ of whether or not there should be separability mechanism should be stricken. Since it is inconsistent with principles.

  Avri Doria (gnso/ncsg):ah, a catch 22.  if you have survived ambiguity/uncertainty for a long time, it is ok, but don't introduce any new ambiguity/uncertainty

  Matthew Shears:the assumption is that htere should be a mechanism

  Matthew Shears:as NTIA asked of ICANN

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:the term Seperatrion Mechanics  makes sense to me re DT-L

  Grace Abuhamad:DT-L already has changed their title:

  Grace Abuhamad:By that, I meant that it's currently : IANA Functions - Transition Plan Actions"

  Matthew Shears:yes, thanks Grace

  Brenden Kuerbis:I suspect the origin of

  Guru Acharya:From what i understand the CRISP team has stated that they require the RIR communities to initiate a subsequent community process to fill in the blanks such as details about the contract renewal process, contract duration, service levels etc. If the CWG also plans to not give suffient details like CRISP, then it should also reccomend a post-CWG process for filling up the gaps.

  Milton Mueller:I would ask that the notes be changed. currently it says "Action: Seek clarification from ICG and/or NTIA on level of detail required in proposal"

  Milton Mueller:ICG has reviewed the numbers and protocols proposals and has not raised any questions about their level of detail

  Jari Arkko:+1 to Milton

  Grace Abuhamad:Ok @Milton. Thank you.

  Milton Mueller:Also, in response to Jaap

  Brenden Kuerbis:I suspect the "

  Milton Mueller:But i still don't agree that this is an action item.

  Grace Abuhamad:So, Milton, you don't that that the CWG should seek clarification at all? No action

  Grace Abuhamad:?

  Brenden Kuerbis:I suspect the "complete and implementable" phrase is an incorrect permutation of Strickling's remarks to SoN where he said, "the plan must be comprehensive and complete".

  Milton Mueller:It seems like my statements never make it into the notes, I specifically noted that a separation mechanism was required and it should not be a question

  Milton Mueller:Grace: Correct

  Milton Mueller:The CWG should develop a proposal. the proposal should be implementable. The level of detail, as Jari said, depends on what we are trying to do

  Milton Mueller:It makes no sense to ask NTIA or anyone else, in advance, what "level of detail" is required

  Avri Doria (gnso/ncsg):butMilton, you asked whether names had to meet the same level of description as numbers and protocols.  so this is a qquestion you do nopt wish asked?

  Brenden Kuerbis:It is a department of ICANN, yes?

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:@Milton: here we're talking about the level of "implementation" detail required. This question came up by L. Strickling in Singapore. If the CWG is not clear about this it should just ask

  Matthew Shears:IANA functions operator may not be a group in the future - it may be an entity (other org)

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Milton:I disagree. We are pressed on timelines. It will be nice to know what detail they expect to see.

  Paul Kane:Hello all

  Milton Mueller:They cannot answer that queswion meaningfully

  Jonathan Robinson:Hello Paul. We are reviewing the Principles led by Lise

  Milton Mueller:Wolf-Ulrich: Ok, the only meaningful way to ask this question is to ask NTIA whether they consider the numbers and protocols proposals to be detailed enough to be implementable

  Milton Mueller:Then we have an indication of what level of detail is required. To ask them to specify implementation detail in a vacuum, absent a specific proposal, seems really useless to me

  Milton Mueller:Furthermore, we are not supposed to ask the NTIA what our proposal should be

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:don't think so

  Jonathan Robinson:Lise & I have a co-ordination call with the ICG chairs (possibly absent Alissa) on Friday

  Lise Fuhr:Martin are you on audio?

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:I see this as a clarification necessary. Why shouldn't we do this on ICG level?

  Guru Acharya:Operator(s) given that it may split?

  Paul Kane:I am in a hotel in Copenhagen - I'd like to speak to 7ii but my connection is too bad to speak

  Paul Kane:I hope to receive a call soon

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:waiting for the call to be answered

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I support UNIT

  Milton Mueller:I support unit

  Jari Arkko:The ICG has already looked at the 2 proposals. The communities have also been  in contact with NTIA to receive feedback, and so far all we've heard is "OK", but of course, it could be that opinions change/develop. But I think you guys should be sensitive to not using your process to effect feedback on other two... I'm afraid of a situation where NTIA wants to tell you something but since you are asking it in aroundabout way, the only thing they can do is to make a comment on the two other proposals. Which may not be the right thing to do, if the isssue was something they wanted to just say to you. Anyway, since the IETF proposal is 98% implemented in previous years, I think we should be fine in terms of implementation detail. I acknowledge the need to fill in contracts. This is work in progress.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:i'm there

  Brenda Brewer:Seun's line has disconnected, we will call him back.

  Milton Mueller:Agree with Jari. The only reason I siuggested asking about whether names and numbers were sufficiently detailed is that i truly believe it is impossible to specify an appropriate level of detail until and unless you know what is being proposed. So in those two cases we know what was proposed.

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:The major goal in this respect should be to avoid that the NTIA would reject the proposal because of items  which have not been clarified before (e.g. implementation details)

  Milton Mueller:WU: And I am saying that once we have a proposal, people can weigh in on whether implementation is feasible and sufficiently detailed, - not before

  Milton Mueller:As we are evaluating the proposal we can debate its level of detail and its implementability. Public comments will be held which can address that, also.  Asking NTIA for clarification now will not help us do that at all.

  Milton Mueller:However, asking NTIA now can distort our proposal development process by encouraging people to guess what the NTIA wants, and not what is right or what needs to be done.

  Jonathan Robinson:Note the action recorded - Action: What is the origin of the text in v.2.2  section III.A.1.1 now and what guidance has NTIA &/or ICG already issued.

  Milton Mueller:Jonathan: that's better

  Greg Shatan:In Andrew's text in 7(ii), I suggest that the lead in be changed to "Post transition of the IANA function, the IANA Functions Operator will continue..." This takes advantage of the (much debated) term "IANA Functions Operator" rather than the somewhat ambiguous "IANA."

  Andrew Sullivan:re: the consensus policies.  If the text were modified to say  "an consensus ICANN policies governing the root zone itself," would that be enough?

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:@Milton: I'm flexible on timing

  Andrew Sullivan:I have no objection to Greg's change

  Greg Shatan:Can't understand

  Alan Greenberg:How about "applicable ICANN consensus policies? If you opt out, they areby definition not applicable.

  erick iriarte:i suggest to put this point on "freezer" until Esstambul and discuss face-to-face (is only a suggestion)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Alan +1

  Alan Greenberg:cannot understand elise.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Well stated Andrew...  focus clearly in the doc is Root Zone

  Leon Sanchez:I am sorry but have to leave the call early

  Leon Sanchez:thanks and talk to you soon

  Leon Sanchez:bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Happy to support @Gregs proposed edit  to language in 7(ii)  "Post transition... ... "

  Jari Arkko:+1 to being clear that the oversight/transition is about oversight of the IANA functions operator (and root zone maintainer), not ICANN as a whole. ICANN as a whole (e.g., gGNSO) is and should be in full charge of what policies are adopted and what instruction to give to IANA functions operator.

  Jonathan Robinson:@Lise. Agreed - Principles to guide / shape our work. This is not the actual proposal.

  Greg Shatan:In Section 7, it's really rather critical that the term "IANA Functions Operator" is understood to be the IANA department, not ICANN.  This is not a fine point of detail.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Exactly @Martin...

  Greg Shatan:What Martin says may be true of many ccTLD operators. but by no means all.

  Alan Greenberg:We are currently using the term "IANA Functions  Operator " in two differnt ways (see 9.i - clearly theIFO is ICANN). Why don't we clearly define two different names and then no longer debate this.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:you can update me on this tomooroaw Lise!

  Carolina Aguerre:Thank you Lise

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:thanks Lise :)

  Greg Shatan:I agree with you Alan..

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Indeed tahnks Lise

  Lise Fuhr:Bye all

  Grace Abuhamad:DTA docs are here:

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Alan - no, not clear to me for 9.i appart from the fact that it this is about the first change.  IANA functions operator follows the contract or whatever around - it is operationally-linked, not location

  Alan Greenberg:@Martin, for clarity, I was not saying that ICANN = IFO in the future. Just that in 9, the "operator" is the larger entity currently responsible for overseeing the IANA functions.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:I'm not sure that's relevant, Alan.  We are looking at principles applied just to the bit of the organisation doing the work

  Alan Greenberg:All I was suggesting was since we seem to be using the IFO to alternatively mean (in current situation nomenclature) meaning either the IAN  group OR ICANN, that we define to different generic terms for clarity.

  Brenda Brewer:Allan has sent his apologies for this call

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:I think I have been reasonably consistent on what this document means.  The operator is just that.  icann is just its [current] organisational home

  Grace Abuhamad:

  Grace Abuhamad:DT-C notes/ documents etc

  Grace Abuhamad:DT D members: Members of this list include:Cheryl Langdon-OrrJaap AkkerhuisDanny YoungerMilton MuellerMaarten SimonJian-Chuan Chang

  Rudi Vansnick:@Jaap: let's have a chat about DT F lead if you whish after the call or tomorrow

  Rudi Vansnick:@Jaap: we could even do it in Dutch ;-)

  erick iriarte::)

  Matthew Shears:apologies for the sound quality - we're in good shape and will be looking first to the existing transition plan for Istanbul

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Just a reminder with DT-D  that any one is encouraged to look at and comment on the work and drafing done as it  progress of our work by watching / following our Wiki page (Grace can you put the link for that either here or to the CWG list please)

  Matthew Shears:already have some inputs and issues that need to be addressed

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1Avri

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):Avri - if work on the CSC wraps up to some extent, I would like to contribute to this effort

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):i agree with priority 2 assessment

  Alan Greenberg:I don't think it is a derivative of other work, but don't think it is Prio 1.

  Matthew Shears:is there a need for a DT on the actual periodic review of the IANA functions (should that be necessary?) as was intended for he MRT, for example?

  Brenden Kuerbis:We in fact had a "Periodic Review Team" IIRC

  Matthew Shears:I agree with Greg

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:Yes there is a need for review - this is critical for political reassurane as well as obvious managerial best practice.

  Milton Mueller:+1 Carvell comment

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Agree @Avri  tht makes sense

  Avri Doria (gnso/ncsg):Geg why isn't that part of the SOW?

  Avri Doria (gnso/ncsg):And if not in the SOW, where is it defined?

  Matthew Shears:Agree missing deisgn team is a prioity 1

  Milton Mueller:Jon - do not want to address this issue, something else

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:+1 Greg and Matthew

  Brenden Kuerbis:@MM I would support merging those two DTs as well, authorization is just a (TBD) step in overall process.

  Milton Mueller:Right, we have populated DT-D on authorization, but not DT-F. But many of the same people are interested in both

  Milton Mueller:makes sense to merge them

  Rudi Vansnick:@Milton: Jaap and myself will work DT F tomorrow

  Brenden Kuerbis:@greg feel free to share a quick overview of proposed models if you think it could help Sidley's discussions:

  Milton Mueller:Rudi: what do you mean "work DT-F"?

  Sivasubramanian M:What is the timeline for the red team?

  Grace Abuhamad:Call notes are here:

  Rudi Vansnick:@Milton : on the lead for DT F

  Milton Mueller:Rudi: well, i don't care who is lead but doin't you think it should be merged with D?

  Rudi Vansnick:Milton : perhaps ... not yet sure

  Brenden Kuerbis:Have to go, thanks everyone.

  Rudi Vansnick:need to go, another call in 4 minutes

  Alan Greenberg:Moreover, what IS the red team??? (for those of us who were offline)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Need to go to another call

  Alan Greenberg:Coherence and gap analysis I presume. Good. We need that.

  Matthew Shears:that's what I recall Jonathan

  Grace Abuhamad:Action (Staff): Add Red Team at end of DT list to to examine whether there are any issues with respect to meeting NTIA's criteria, particularly with respect to security and stability and prevention of capture. This is a particular form of stress testing

  Avri Doria (gnso/ncsg):

  Grace Abuhamad:That was the Action from Thrusday.

  Jari Arkko:have to run. thanks, all.

  Andrew Sullivan:thanks all; bye

  Matthew Shears:thanks!

  Sivasubramanian M:Thank you

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Bye all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:by all

  Carolina Aguerre:bye all

  • No labels