Notes

Notes:

Roll call (will be taken from Adobe Connect)

Not on Adobe Connect: Steve Crocker, Theresa Swinehart

1. Opening Remarks

Critical point - have started working with the new approach using design teams. 

Everyone encouraged to review materials that are shared and provide constructive feedback.

Results of the design team will be shared with the full CWG for review and approval - keeping in mind that this will needs to be inserted into the draft transition proposal. 

Review of outstanding action items:

Action (Chairs): Will get back to group with DT list and priorities

Action (Elise/GAC): Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team

Action (Donna): CSC Scope document produced before next meeting (COMPLETED) - to be discussed during today's meeting

Action (Martin): Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin - to be discussed during today's meeting

2. Update from DT-A (Paul Kane)

No substantial updates compared to Tuesday's meeting. Baseline of work was presented during Tuesday's meeting and DT will work from there. DT hopes to share process flow charts early next week. Communications will occur on the publicly archived mailing list. Request to clarify that the DT's scope is to a) porting across existing service level obligations to the post-transition environment;  b) creating the possibility of reviewing and changing them in future but not c) reviewing and updating the substantive content. Intent is to use real world statics as the baseline for SLEs. Item b) is currently not on the list, but is something that has been raised before. DT will first develop process flow and real-world performance (target date - early next week), followed by proposed escalation path in relation to SLE (which is different from periodic review which may be handled by CSC). Item b) could follow after these items have been dealt with. No response to c) yet, in principle not on the agenda, but it could arise. Jay Daly and Jeff Eckhaus are working on the process flow, while Paul is focused on the statistical analysis for now. Question: Is the escalation path uniform irrespective of the sensitivity and exigency of the Registry's problem ? consider an extreme situation that takes a Registry offline. Is there a hotline path? Answer: Yes, this already exists and is likely to continue. 

Action: Paul to review template to ensure scope aligns with DT's work.

3. Update from DT-B (Allan MacGillivray)

Revised template circulated to address comments received - title reflects the intent of the DT. Objective is to determine whether there is sufficient support in the ccTLD community for a possible appeal mechanism for ccTLD delegations and redelegations. 

What is the expected deliverable? Team still needs to get together to discuss. The DT expects to take a survey of the ccTLD community. Timing will depend on how quickly the survey can be put together while also allowing sufficient time for responses. Should there be support for a limited appeals mechanism, the DT could then consider what the next steps should be. Very narrow focus objective - no link with FOI. Would bringing forward a number of appeal mechanism designs for feedback produce more results? This is to be further discussed by the DT, but Allan would be supportive of that approach.

4. Review of Scope Document DT-C (Donna Austin)

See document shared on the mailing list. Structured with previous discussions on CSC in mind, knowing that certain elements such as MRT, internal/external will be addressed at a later stage. Will need to factor in work that is being undertaken by SLE DT. There was a question on the list whether a liaison should be added - this is probably already covered by the expertise currently identified. In relation to 'h' is to consider, no agreement at this stage whether it should or shouldn't be involved in this role. 

5. Review & Finalize CWG Principles Document (Martin Boyle)

Revised version circulated yesterday proposing a way forward on outstanding items. Proposal to remove comments / redlines on issues that have not received further input / concerns and focus on remaining issues as outlined in email. 

7-ii - is compromise language acceptable? Needs further work based on comments on the mailing list, but start from the suggested compromise language. 

5-ii - updated language shared on the mailing list. Update to be made to document. 

5-iii - bracketed language to be deleted. Clarify IANA Functions Operator - in other contexts this has meant ICANN (needs to be checked in whole document to ensure consistency). 

5-iv - new footnote. Avri has suggested a modification on the list - but not clear what ICANN consensus is, but comment will be included in revised version to allow for further discussion. May need to clarify that 'consensus' is not any particular definition of consensus as different groups have different definitions. 

5-vi - see comment on the list from Maarten Simon. 

6 - ii - to be retained or not? Proposal to delete this part. Automation of IANA functions should not be a principle in relation to the transition. 

7 - i - see edits from Maarten Simon. No objections. 

10 - see language proposed by Stephanie. Consider using 'should'. Add 'should' to next version. 

8.11 - to be taken off-line with Erick. 

Action (Martin): Martin to make modifications as discussed and recirculate draft for CWG review.

6. Update on Client Committee (Greg Shatan)

See also updated provided on Tuesday. Client committee has received proposed engagement letter from frontrunner which reflects unique circumstances of this relationship. Is still work in progress. Considering rules of engagement - a number of proposed working methods are contained in the engagement letter. Still waiting for permission from one of the firm to share name. Once that has been received, the names of all three firms will be received. Hope to engage firm by end of this week or early next week. Advice expected to be result of discussions, not just answers to written questions. How is the discussion with the law firm expected to be managed? Rules of engagement will be a part of this. Client committee expected to directly interface with lawyers, which may require revisiting the membership of the client committee. Move to more typical working method such as publicly archived mailing list and recorded meetings so that there is a public record. Expected to have interim deliverables that are shared with the full CWG. Will lawyers be in Istanbul? Is under consideration, but cost-benefit analysis will need to be made. 

7. AOB

No items

8. Closing remarks & Review of Action Items

Action (Chairs): Will get back to group with DT list and priorities

Action (Elise/GAC): Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team

Action (Martin): Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin

Action (Paul): Paul to review template to ensure scope aligns with DT's work.

Action (Martin): Martin to make modifications as discussed and recirculate draft for CWG review.

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #26 05 MARCH.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #26 05 MARCH.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8sy6zh3pc9/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-05mar15-en.mp3

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Marika Konings:Welcome to meeting #26 of the CWG IANA Stewardship

  Marika Konings:Loud and clear, Cheryl!

  Marika Konings:You sound good on AC audio - I still need to dial in though ;-)

  James Gannon (Security Focus):Morning all.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:hi all

  Lise Fuhr:Hello

  jaap:Hi all

  Marika Konings:Please mute your lines when not speaking

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Hello :)

  Milton Mueller:hello

  Milton Mueller:drive safely

  Mary Uduma:Hello Everyone

  Erick Iriarte:hi.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Good morning, all!

  Matthew Shears:hi all

  Wale Bakare:Hi all

  Milton Mueller:So there is no actual design in this design team?

  Seun Ojedeji:Hello all

  Milton Mueller:it is a question -

  Matthew Shears:I think that the IAP has to be xplored within nthe DT given the responses to the survey, the fact that the IAP is a conponent of some of the models that have been discussed, etc.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:FoI doesn't help here?

  Milton Mueller:yes

  Milton Mueller:Staff: why are my comments and Alan's responses not in the record?

  Chris Disspain:could Paul please provide the teams response to the general consensus on the list that this team should be doing a) porting across existing service level obligations to the post-transition environment;b) creating the possibility of reviewing and changing them in future; and

  Chris Disspain:not doing c) reviewing and updating the substantive content.

  Milton Mueller:For your use: I asked him wouldn't we make more progress is specific solutions to the nature of the IAP were proposed and levels of agreement for them assessed, so that actual progress in design could be made

  Marika Konings:@Milton - does this not reflect your discussion: Would bringing forward a number of appeal mechanism designs for feedback produce more results? This is to be further discussed by the DT.

  Milton Mueller:yes, but Alan also said he would like to take the DT in that direction

  Chris Disspain:I have put a question in the cgat

  Chris Disspain:chat

  Marika Konings:@Milton - I've updated the last sentence accordingly.

  Milton Mueller:thanks

  James Gannon (Security Focus):Milton open mic

  Grace Abuhamad:I muted @Milton

  Chris Disspain:thanks for the comprehensiv  e answe Paul

  Marika Konings:Eckhaus

  Paul Kane:Will do

  Milton Mueller:Some overlap with the CSC DT?

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Milton: there may be some overlap between the two.

  Milton Mueller:Agree, Donna. What I don't want to see is that DT A is all ccTLDs and DT C is all gTLDs ;-)

  Sivasubramanian M Phone:Q: Is the escalation path uniform irrespective of the sensitivity and exigency of the Registry's problem ? consider an extreme situation that takes a Registry offline. Is there a hotline path?

  Sivasubramanian M Phone:thank you grace and paul

  Seun Ojedeji:How long does the CSC DT  thinks it will take to complete their work?

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Seun: I don't know the answer to your question..

  Erick Iriarte:sorry i need to take a train, i discussed with martin about g ii, we are close to find a "consensus" for the correct language. my apologies .

  Seun Ojedeji:@Donna okay noted. However do you know if it will be ready before  F2F?

  Lise Fuhr:Bye Erick

  Donna Austin, RySG:@ Milton: the DT-A does have equal representation of both ccs and gs, and that is also the expectation for the DT-C.

  Seun Ojedeji:Getting background noise

  Seun Ojedeji:Yes, it was ;-)

  Seun Ojedeji:@Donna you are yet to answer my second question?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Marting, - good - ok

  Donna Austin, RySG:Seun: I would hope that it would, but as we haven't agreed the scoping document and established the team, it may be difficult to achieve.

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay thanks

  Matthew Shears:I think 5.iii the title should read: Independence (or preferably separation) of IANA from policy processes

  jaap:There is an IETF RFC about consensuc

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Martin: I'd be concerned using "ICANN consensus" as this appears to focus on what it is, thus if ICANN decides "ICANN Consensus" is 51% agreement that dramatically changes the meaning of éConsensus"

  Brenden Kuerbis:Can't speak for Avri but perhaps she is referring to "consensus" defintion in GNSO operating procedures?

  Brenden Kuerbis:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/op-procedures-12mar14-en.pdf

  Brenden Kuerbis:Pag 42

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW):@Martin: In 5 iii Footnote, the first reference to stakeholders should refer to Members of the Group. The second reference to Stakeholders should stand, including non-Members of the group. CW

  jaap:RFC 7282: On Consensus and Humming in the IETF

  Brenden Kuerbis:I do support the notion that we should work from some defintion of consensus

  James Gannon (Security Focus):Might be easiest to use IETF RFC consensus for independance of defintion of consesnsus

  Milton Mueller:No, Greg, "(i.e. ICANN) refers to the fact that ICANN is the current operator

  Milton Mueller:You could however delete (i.e. ICANN) without losing anything

  Matthew Shears:I think we probaly need to get back to the notion of separation from rather than independence of - in other words the IANA functions are separated from policy processes (as we have consistently said)

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I don't think we can refer to ICANN as the current operator in 9  and then in 5iii say that policy process should be independent of the operator.

  Matthew Shears:agree Greg - need to reformulate 5iii

  Milton Mueller:why not?

  Milton Mueller:that ICANN is the current operator is a fact. that policy should be independent of the operator is an agreed principle. full stop

  Matthew Shears:I agree with Maarten's comments re appeals and redress

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Because the policy processes aren't independent of ICANN., only of the IANA team.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Milton, are you saying that the current state of affairs is that the policy process is independent of ICANN?

  Milton Mueller:No

  Milton Mueller:The issue of what level of separation is required to achieve this independence is an open one

  Seun Ojedeji:I think i agree with that as well

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Hmmm.  That is what you said -- ICANN = current operator; policy independent of  operator.  Full stop.

  James Gannon (Security Focus):I would tend to agree with Maarten

  Chris Disspain:agree with Martin

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW):Automation for routine functions.. Automation of all functions would lead to mistakes.

  Milton Mueller:no that is not what I said. You forgot the "should"

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):So you a re saying that policy should be independent of ICANN?

  Milton Mueller:One is a fact, one is a norm

  Chris Disspain:Apologies to Maatren for misspelling his name

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Not sure how that works.  Maybe I'm smissing something.

  Chris Disspain:Maarten

  Milton Mueller:No I am saying IANA should be independent of ICANN's policy process

  Milton Mueller:Don't understand what is so complicated about this.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I agree with what you are saying.  It's a question of nomenclature.  Not substance.

  Milton Mueller:I'll believe it is a question of nomenclature when you either a) tell me what is wrong with the nomenclature we are currently using or b) propose a different, better one

  Seun Ojedeji:@Milton, i agree to the level of independence to the extent that IANA still depends on the outcome of ICANN policy process

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):HArd to understant

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Is the microphone

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):If opeartor currently means ICANN (and not the IANA team), then it is incorrect to say that policy should be independent of the operator.

  Milton Mueller:of course. operator currently means IANA team within ICANN

  Milton Mueller:but wait, you keep mixcing up "is" and "ought"

  Milton Mueller:if ICANN is currently the operator, it does not mean that ICANN _should_ be the operator under the current conditions

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thanks @Martin

  Maarten Simon, SIDN:@mary: could yo

  Milton Mueller:No assertion about who or what the operator currently is proves anything about who it should be

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I thought you just said the IANA team witin ICANN is the operator.  Which is it.?

  Milton Mueller:The IANA team within ICANN is the IANA functions operator. That is a fact

  Milton Mueller:ICANN is also owner and operator of the policy process. Independence of IANA functions operator from policy is a norm,not a fact

  Milton Mueller:Whether current arrangements meet the norm is debatable. Got it now?

  Seun Ojedeji:@Milton but the IANA team are operating because they are empowered to do so by ICANN. NTIA recognises ICANN as the IANA operator becuase it contracted to ICANN and not to IANA

  Milton Mueller:This is not a "nomenclature"  or labeling issue.

  Guru Acharya 2:I had filed a DIDP request more than a month back for the transition plan to successor contractor under Clause C.7.3 of the IANA Functions Contract. I finally got a response today. The document is available at www.iana.org/reports/2014/transition-plan-201404.pdfIt is only a 3 page document, which in my opinion, needs serious revision, especially if separability is to be the foundation/principle of the response we prepare. Maybe there can be a Design Team focused on suggesting revisions to the document.

  Matthew Shears:guru - can you check link?

  Guru Acharya 2:www.iana.org/reports/2014/transition-plan-201404.pdf

  Milton Mueller:Yes, Seun, NTIA contracts with ICANN to run the IANA functions, and the contract requires some degree of independence of the policy process. That contract, of course, is going away

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:Martin - apologies if I missed it - what is the  target date for finalising the prinicples? 

  Milton Mueller:congratulations, Guru, on getting results from the DIDP process

  Seun Ojedeji:here is the link guru shared: http://www.iana.org/reports/2014/transition-plan-201404.pdf

  Matthew Shears:Guru - thanks for pursuing this - much appreciated

  Matthew Shears:Agree this is a good topic for a DT

  Guru Acharya 2:@Shears: Thanks.

  James Gannon (Security Focus):Q for Greg: Can you provide some info on how/if ICANN legal staff are engaging/providing input into the work of the engagement letter and terms of reference for want of a better phrase?

  Chris Disspain:Greg, apologies if I am not up to date on this, but who will draft the instructions to the law firm and the questions for them to answer. I ask because those who get to insruct or ask or involve themselves in the debate with thebfirm are the ones who essentially control the outcome (and I speak as a lawyer :0()

  Steve Crocker:  I need to break off for today.

  Lise Fuhr:OK bye Steve

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW):@Greg: If we look at the membership of CWG and even the numbers on this call, some of whom are Members with responsibilities to their group. WE cannot ALL participate directly in the conversations with the legal advice. There has to be a tex/texts that provide the basis for discussion and buy-in to the outcome of the legal advice. CW

  Mary Uduma:@Greg, were the questions  to the Experts updated with the hybrid draft model presented by Avri and her team after ICANN 52?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@ Mark:  there are two big issues remaining.  I hope to male progress in time for a discussion on Tuesday

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:high

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:highly desirable I would have thought

  James Gannon (Security Focus):I woudl agree if if not in an advisory capacity I would like to see them there, the cost shoudlnt be overly an issue compred to the potential behefit

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes 1 lead onsite

  Seun Ojedeji:lost audio

  James Gannon (Security Focus):Seun I think you lost your dialout

  Brenda Brewer:We are calling you back Seun.

  Seun Ojedeji:hand my hand up for a while but did not know i already lost AC

  Seun Ojedeji:Thanks

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW):@Olivier: Or we are wating our time asking external Counsel. CW

  Milton Mueller:+1 Olivier

  Matthew Shears:Greg - to re-ask Mary's quesiton above - has the doc for external counsel ben updated with the "integrated model" that Avri presented?

  Brenda Brewer:Seun is back on audio

  Seun Ojedeji:yes i am thanks

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@ Olivier:  +1

  Seun Ojedeji:oh....okay so 1 firm has been selected?

  James Gannon (Security Focus):One frontrunner out of 3 in final selection

  James Gannon (Security Focus):Just going to bring my question back from above for greg: Q for Greg: Can you provide some info on how/if ICANN legal staff are engaging/providing input into the work of the engagement letter and terms of reference for want of a better phrase?

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay yeah but again my point is what delaying the frontrunner from being selected

  Lise Fuhr:We need to go on to DT C in 5 minutes

  Brenden Kuerbis:@Greg, has the doc for external counsel been updated with the "integrated model" that Avri presented?

  James Gannon (Security Focus):Perfect thanks.

  Brenden Kuerbis:Apologies, thanks

  Matthew Shears:thanks Greg

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Glad I had my coffee....

  James Gannon (Security Focus):Haha never an easy minute =) We keep you on your toes in the early mornings

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):6-8 am is such a jolly time slot.

  James Gannon (Security Focus):Q: Would the NTIA funding stop at the moment not stop them from providing that liason

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Not complaining  (or competing for masochism points) -- I said it was jolly! 

  Sivasubramanian M Phone:Apologies. I had connectivity and other issues. Dropped off halfway.

  Staffan Jonson:Hi all, Finally on Adobe as well.

  Matthew Shears:Is there a DT on the authorization role?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:excellent thanks @donna

  Marika Konings:@Matt - yes, there is one on the list, but has not been proposed yet.

  Brenden Kuerbis:@CW My understanding based on the list discussion and v2 of draft proposal is that the authorization function would go away.

  Staffan Jonson:At this stage in the CSC process, we need to list all considerations. We cannot yet take them out of the equation

  Milton Mueller:How is a separate IANA that takes policy from ICANN "competing for power" with ICANN?

  Milton Mueller:Yes, .app comments irrelevant, as usual

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 Agree with Milton - I am also curious how the Authorization Function fits in the CSC

  James Gannon (Security Focus):+1

  Marika Konings:To confirm, the DT is on the list of possible DTs but has not been formally proposed yet.

  Matthew Shears:I think the discussion should probably be ported to the DT on authorization - that team can then decide if such a function is necessary and if so wherer it should sit

  Seun Ojedeji:I think there was suggestion of the current ICANN CTO

  Staffan Jonson:Happy for contributions!

  Seun Ojedeji:perhaps he can be included

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:@Christopher: this transition is essentially de-politicising IANA stewardship and putttign the appropriate functional and global accountbility framework and mechanisms in place.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:good call... thanks everyone

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye

  Chris Disspain:Thanks all

  James Gannon (Security Focus):Thanks for a good call all, greg and donna can go have breakfast now

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:solve?  Well that's a challenge!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:I'll try!

  Seun Ojedeji:Thanks and bye

  Matthew Shears:thanks all - useful call

  Wale Bakare:bye

  Lise Fuhr:Bye

  Maarten Simon, SIDN:thanks bye

  jaap:Bye all

  Brenden Kuerbis:bye all

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Bye all!

  Allan MacGillivray:Good day all.

  Staffan Jonson:Thanks all

  Mary Uduma:Bye All