Proposed Agenda: 

• DT - status & development of design teams & Timeline
• Wrap-up

Notes

Question to consider during the break

What are the fundamental issues that we are trying to solve for?

Are we or can we converge around a solution? Is there something around which we can converge? 

Comments: 

• • Suggest that external is put to the side for now, and that the integrated/hybrid model be brought forward
  • Look at this from perspective of stability and continuity is important and may lead to hybrid model
  • With hybrid, we are taking the bet on enhancing ICANN's accountability, and if we lose that bet, then it should be lost publically. Contract Co. is hedging against that bet. 
  • Registries would like to explore the internal solutions further
  • A proposal that Sidley look into the Hybrid model and Contract Co. model 
  • There are a lot of similarities in the internal models -- would like for Sidley to look at those
  • We got input on the Contract Co. model from our Public Comment in December 2014
  • Would not communicate that we have eliminated Contract Co. 
  • How do we fill in the gaps in the Hybrid model? Perhaps Sidley can assist with that
  • Contract Co. may have ideas to contribute to Hybrid
  • Sidley can help us understand how we institutionalize the link with the CCWG-Acct work (Sidley is working with both groups)
  • Consider the broader community (the GAC, the WSIS+10 review, etc)

Chair's summary: 

We don't want to pre-empt a decision, but we want a focus

There are still details to iron out

Sidley will focus on internal models 

We are working closely with CCWG-acct and are perhaps even giving them more direction for their work with our focus

Action (Lise): set a deadline for Principles

Action (Sidley team): looking at the internal models (functional separation and legal separation) with focus on the entity which is the IANA functions. From there, look into what the implementation possibilities /requirements are. Focus on the diversity of the gTLD and ccTLD legacies. 

Design Team Status Update

• • DTA -- prefer before 10 April
  • DTB is in progress (survey ends on 3 April)
  • DTC has a lot of work to do before 10 April
  • DTD is changing its purpose to move the considerations to DTF

Action: Cheryl and Alan to work this out

• • DTE is complete and will be submitted to Red team
  • DTF -- Alan is lead 
  • DTL -- waiting on some requested documents
  • DTM may need to revisit considering CCWG output
  • DTN will take guidance and registrries document for as input
  • DTO -- needs a lead
  • Red Team will be staff led 

Thank you DTs for all the good work

Timeline

Compiled by Berry Cobb

Main changes: 

• • Public Comment is shifted back to 20 April
  • High intensity to prepare for public comment is moved to 13-14 April
  • Translation is important 
  • Public Comment may require special device with specific questions (part of the structured for discussed) 
  • Structured PC makes the analysis more accurate and easier to do.
  • Risk factor of community concensus remains -- members must do their best to communicate back with their groups consistently so that there are no surprises

Action (members): go back to their chartering org and explain the timeline and the short form/ long form proposal 

Action (staff): look at lessons learned for document management from PC in Policy and Implementation WG

Key Dates

10 April – deadline for DTs to provide content

13-14 Intensive working days – Preparing final proposal

20 Apr (Monday) – Start of Public Comment for 30 days

20 May (Wednesday) – Close of Public Comment

- - - Review public Comments / Continue Proposal Development - -

30 May (Saturday) – High-Intensity weekend

08 Jun (Monday) – Deliver Names Proposal to SOs/ACs

25 Jun (Thursday) - Deliver Names Proposal to ICG

Action Items

• Action (Lise): set a deadline for Principles
• Action (Sidley team): looking at the internal models (functional separation and legal separation) with focus on the entity which is the IANA functions. 
  From there, look into what the implementation possibilities /requirements are. Focus on the diversity of the gTLD and ccTLD legacies. 
• Action: Cheryl and Alan to work this out
• Action (members): go back to their chartering org and explain the timeline and the short form/ long form proposal 
• Action (staff): look at lessons learned for document management from PC in Policy and Implementation WG

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 8 27 March.doc

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 8 27 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p94nbcldaq3/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-4-27mar15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (3/27/2015 09:03) CWG IANA F2F Day 2 Session 8 will begin soon.

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:07) We're getting people back in the room

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:07) Starting soon!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:08) I don't envy Graces job of herding evryone, we are all enjoying replenishing our caffiene

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:10) People slowly filtering back in...

  Guru Acharya: (09:16) again. the invisible 5 principle of pleasing the US congress.

  Guru Acharya: (09:16) *5th

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:18) agree totally

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:18) @Guru - the final proposal is going to go to NTIA and there's nothing we can do about that. So rather than spending more time on a solution that is unlikely to run, we need to work on a solution that will work for everyone.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:18) I would second Greg

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:18) Clapping in room for Greg's comments

  Gary Campbell: (09:19) Awesome

  Guru Acharya: (09:20) While I dont agree with Olivier's logic of choosing the Hybrid model; I definitely support Greg's logic of supporting the Hybrid model - that is definitely possible to reach consensus using that model.

  Jordan Carter: (09:20) You guys would be terrible negotiators :-)

  Jordan Carter: (09:21) "Oh no, the other party wants X! Let's give it to them!"

  Jordan Carter: (09:22) There is a big difference between taking NTIA views into account, and in allowing them to rule approaches in and out

  Jordan Carter: (09:22) (based on random extra criteria expressed in code since the initial announcements were made)

  Avri Doria: (09:23) Jordan, who is 'you guys'  and is this negotations or a consensus process.

  Jordan Carter: (09:23) This work is meant to be a consensus process. Once we have aproposal, we can engage on it and take the feedback into account with the next iteration. You guys is the people saying NTIA winks this, therefore don't go there.

  Avri Doria: (09:24) NTIA wll accept what ever has broad consensus and whic answers Lary's accountabilty questions.  He did not say no new stuff.  He said any new stuff needs to proof as to accountabilty.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:24) Agree Avri

  Jordan Carter: (09:24) the negotiiation happens after the consensus here is reached, not before it -- at least, I thought so

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:24) This is, I thought, a consensus process. There appears to be much interest in the hydrid. Contract Co. has raised, and is still raising a lot of questions - and a big stumbling block is the recipient of the report. The Contract Co. does not appear to reach consensus in the room either

  Jordan Carter: (09:25) the joint advice from a range of CCs doesn't address the key question in front of us.

  Avri Doria: (09:25) dont get me wrong, i favor a hybrid model.

  Avri Doria: (09:25) but that was probably obvious

  Alan Greenberg: (09:25) Sidley  certainly has the capacity to evaluate all options in parallel, but do we really want to pay for that?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:26) Focus - we need to make use of Sidley's time on building the most likely proposal

  Jordan Carter: (09:26) we can't let them do our option assessment ALan, that's our job

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:26) There is an elmnent of Contract Co. i.e., strong teeth for the community, which I'd like to see explored more in the Integrated model context.

  Jordan Carter: (09:26) its about what in substance we ask them to develop

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:27) E.g., maybe that is in the board composition

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:27) Brenden, I agree.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:27) +1 @Brenden

  Alan Greenberg: (09:27) @Jordon. I didn't mean evaluate. Enhance.

  Alan Greenberg: (09:27) and flesh out

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:28) agree @avri letting the expert advice help us develop the best possible model we can

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:29)  neèd to aim for a 'best of breed' outcome

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:30) agree with you @jonathan

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:31) Can we ask Sidley to advise on some of the mechanisms to strengthen the Hybrid model?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:32) I would hope so @OCL

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:32) Agree

  Jordan Carter: (09:33) best of breed sounds a bit like stockbreeding - but in any case, yes we do want to draw together the best of this all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:33) well @jordan , we do use the term 'hybrid'

  Jordan Carter: (09:34) we all want - good accountability - ability to separate - clear escalation paths - a mechanism to empower the community to assign the operator

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:34) indeed we do...

  Jordan Carter: (09:35) we all don't want - a random new operator - a sudden change to stewardship - a non-sellable model

  Jordan Carter: (09:35) and we all want a settlement that can stick

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:35) yes and yes

  Jordan Carter: (09:35) almost all these things are common between the various models that are sitting here

  Jordan Carter: (09:35) if there isn't a "fundamental" variation in respect of assignment of stewardship by the community, then it really is narrow differences and can come back to what is most practical

  Jordan Carter: (09:36) and I still think the hybrid stuff is good to explore regardless of the stewardship assignment niggle

  Alan Greenberg: (09:36) Good point Elise, regarding "too many models in Singapore"  and need to now have one (even with variations).

  Wale Bakare: (09:36) I think that is very important with respect to continual internet operation @Jordan.

  Jordan Carter: (09:36) also: talking about "different models" sets up an oppositonal dialogue that fails to focus on the objectives/requirements

  Jordan Carter: (09:38) a central track with a few key questions of debate will make people much happier

  Jordan Carter: (09:38) and it shows how broadly based the consensus actually is

  Jordan Carter: (09:38) (which is very broad)

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:39) The Devil's in the details.

  Jordan Carter: (09:39) ANd the lack of detail is a mega-Devil.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:39) @Geeg: as it alwasy is! :-)

  Jordan Carter: (09:39) Meta-Devil?

  Jordan Carter: (09:44) A central model with two bubbles - a legal bubble around the IANA operations, and an entity bubbl around the deicsionmaking for future operations?

  Jordan Carter: (09:44) the central model has customer representation, SLAs, escalation paths, etc etc etc

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:47) Big round of applause for sidleys work over the last two days

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:47) Document is unsynced

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:48) It was also emailed to mailing list :)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:48) Johnathan is this deadline for longform proposal or shortform or both?

  Thomas Schneider: (09:49) fyi: i need to leave now to catch my plane. i wish you a successful closing of the meeting and will be eager to see the reporting of its outcomes. bye. thomas

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:49) thanks thomas

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:49) Thanks Thomas!

  Jordan Carter: (09:49) ciao Thomas

  nigel hickson: (09:53) Al the best Thomas; see you in Switzerland!

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:53) crosstalk

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:54) voluntold

  Jordan Carter: (09:56) Another great phrase

  Jordan Carter: (09:56) I just heard another  - was asked if something is "yet to be precised"

  Jonathan Robinson: (09:57) @Jordan precisely

  Jordan Carter: (10:03) Make them co-lead it? :P

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:03) anyone remote want to lead?

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:06) Document unsynced

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:10) Ask specific questions about particular sections

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:11) It'll be like the Policy & Implementation WG in the GNSO

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:11) The structured public comment

  Donna Austin, RySG 2: (10:12) I think a 30 day comment period is a good amount of time

  Jordan Carter: (10:14) Key intelligent questions are going to be important, as are the detail to back it up. Comms important etc. All sounding good

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:15) The earlier we close on document, the earlier the translation. It'll be a priority for the translation team, but it's longer turnaround for longer documents

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:21) 17 business days :)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:21) After both F2F's are complete can we get another timeline interrelation document produced between CCWg and CWG we did one way back at the start but wasnt redone recently

  Jordan Carter: (10:21) seventeen business days doesn't look like it from the chart? But you will know the maths.. :)

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:24) If you have any questions about documents, I can compile them for you  or help you find them:)

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (10:27) When do we get to see Xplane's output?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (10:28) Can the Chairs please provide a tweet to summarize our work here?  :-)

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:28) I think they are working through the whole meeting and will provide something soon It'll be an updated PDF

  Jordan Carter: (10:28) "Much progress made, direction changed, lots of consensus, more to do!"

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:29) from the PDF that was provided on DAY 1

  Markus Kummer: (10:30) Thanks and congrats to you all -- this was an incredibly productive meeting with much progress achieved! Safe travels home.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:30) great work everyone, and thanks to all the great staff support we received...

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:31) clap clap

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 2: (10:31) Thanks and safe travels home to all!

  Mary Uduma: (10:31) +1 Markus

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:31) and thank you Lise and Jonathan :-) :-) :-) :-)

  Mary Uduma: (10:32) Great work co-chairs, productive sessions and good leadership.

  Wale Bakare: (10:32) Thanks all

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:32) Bye all!!

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:32) Please put a computer screen in the photo

  Wale Bakare: (10:33) Safest trip