Transcript

Transcript CWG DT-M Meeting 2 April.doc

Transcript CWG DT-M Meeting 2 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6r7xkjql5q/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-dtm-02apr15-en.mp3

Agenda:

1. Roll call

2. Agenda review

3. Review questions in DT-M scoping document

4. High level review latest draft of DT-M proposal 

5. Detailed review and discussion of short-version proposal

6. Detailed review and discussion of Annexes X, Y & Z

7. Future action items

a. Discuss & decide on trigger mechanisms where needed & possible

b. Answer remaining 2 questions from scoping document

c. Other?

Notes

- Review of Scoping document and six questions; qA,B,D,E covered in existing draft; qC,F not discussed yet

- perhaps modify qC for ccTLDs that do not belong to ccNSO

Review of draft DT-M - 2 April 2015.doc

- Summary, page 1 seemed acceptable

- Annex X - Root Zone Emergency Process

  - Roles defined in flowcharts will need to be updated to reflect general roles and not specific entities

ACTION: Marilia to find original soft copies for edit. Else staff can regenerate flow charts. 1) Change RZM and IFO terms

- Emergency Process - no changes proposed to process itself; Stepp by Step descriptions will need RZM and IFO edits as well.

- not clear how long current Emergency Procedures take; needed from an SLE perspective; how long each step would take; 4 Hours is window; difficult to 
be presciptive, depends on issue type (case by case basis); work with VRSN and NTIA

- Kim from IANA best contact re: SLAs/SLEs

- Annex Y - IANA Customer Service Complaint Process

- Basically divided into two steps based on feedback from IANA

- Combines processes discussed in Istanbul with existing procedures; eliminated CEO step (interim)

- Step 1 - internal to IANA Functions Operator; begin with email to escalation@iana.org; if not closed, escalation to Functions Liaison; then Program 
Mgr; options to escalate to Ombudsman

- remainder of text is what is listed on iana.org, with slight adjustments to terminology

- Should c) be retitled to IANA Functions Operator Ombudsman?

- why Ombudsman and not CSC?  Ombudsman not quick in resolution. CSC is involved, idea to use Ombudsman as a mediator prior to CSC.  DT so far, 
Ombudsman is an optional path

ACTION: staff to confirm anyone can use Ombudsman 

- for Complaints, ack in 1 Biz day; if needs to be escalated to Kim, then 2 Biz days to resolve issue; ACK to requestor; Resolve of if needed escalate to Elise; 
Expectation set with requestor

- Step 2 - Use of CSC; if issue not resolved in step 1; Implementation issues for this process; staffing, notification; cost for Mediator

- NTIA were to act as external "mediator"; external party needs to be knowledgeable of IANA operations; Cost not so much issue, but knowledge important;
Benefit of NTIA to offer external service; CSC would replace  role that NTIA plays now.2B is new step different from NTIA; professional mediator

- 2B - CSC "may" involve mediator - supported

- 2C - Problem Mgmt process - optional

- CWG Istanbul; stewardship role held in affiliated company or which ever agreed model; point is that Steward needs to be informed; Mgmt of ICANN need 
to be informed

- Discussion - by escalation to Step 2 for CSC, conceivably by day 3 -5 CSC could be involved; question is how CSC can manage this short runway

ACTION: Staffan to take this back to DT-C - CSC

Annex Z - IANA Problem Mgmt - new procedure

- May require more details; how much implementation details are required?  Collaboration with DT-C on how the CSC could handle this process

- What triggers one step to the next

- May need to add steps RE: what CCWG comes up with accountability mechanisms.  Complete escalation path to accountability mechanisms as necessary.

- Need to determine "periodic audits" as to who will perform them; refer to DT-N

- trigger to find new contractor (RFP) as a step prior to "spilling the board"; DTM if such an option should be an escalation step.  Yet to be determined by 
CCWG if that is an option.  CWG can recommend a "bylaw" that when x happens, that RFP be invoked...to that effect.

- Step 6 "Use of bylaws mechanisims" - Refer to CCWG?? Fundamental bylaw

ACTION: staff add "6. Initiate RFP or Process [mechanism yes to be defined] [Pending Legal Advice & Fundamental Bylaw definition in CCWG]

Scope Questions:

a) What can an individual registry operator do if IANA service is not provided in a timely and/or satisfactory manner (e.g., if SLEs are not met)?

b) What can be done if there are multiple instances of untimely and or unsatisfactory IANA naming services?

c) What role, if any, can existing registry organizations such as the ICANN ccNSO or the ICANN gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) 
have in escalating IANA naming services problems?

d) What role should the CSC play in the escalation process for IANA name services problems?

e) If IANA naming services problems cannot be solved at the CSC level, how and to whom should the problem be escalated?

f) What role, if any, do the other SO/ACs have in escalating IANA name services issues?

Action Items

• • ACTION: Marilia to find original soft copies of flow charts for edit. Else staff can regenrate flow charts. 1) Change RZM and IFO terms
  • ACTION: staff to confirm anyone can use Ombudsman
  • ACTION: staff to update Step 2, 2B - CSC "may" involve mediator
  • ACTION: Staffan to take Step 2 - Escalation to CSC back to DT-C - CSC for them to discuss staffing, etc.
  • ACTION: staff add "6. Initiate RFP or Process [mechanism yes to be defined] [Pending Legal Advice & Fundamental Bylaw definition in CCWG]
  • ACTION: staff to schedule next call.

Chat Transcript

  Chuck Gomes: (4/2/2015 10:00) I will be on mute for a minute

  Berry Cobb: (10:01) Still waiting for VZ.....

  Avri Doria: (10:01) sorry, went to the wrong AC Room.

  Marilia: (10:01) Good morning! Im on hold on the phone

  Avri Doria: (10:01) went to the IANA room without checking.

  staffan Jonson: (10:01) Hi all

  staffan Jonson: (10:02) just checking in

  Avri Doria: (10:03) is their audio (microphones)

  Avri Doria: (10:03) there is now.

  staffan Jonson: (10:05) Hi all, now in with audio

  Avri Doria: (10:06) have n't but will now.

  staffan Jonson: (10:06) You're faint again

  Avri Doria: (10:11) i do not find that other document.  on what list was it sent.

  staffan Jonson: (10:16) Ah, the yellow text actually said that - sorry

  staffan Jonson: (10:17) My compliments as well!

  Berry Cobb: (10:17) All, I need to step away from my PC for a few minutes.  I will still be on phone.  brb

  Berry Cobb: (10:22) back

  Berry Cobb: (10:23) If original cant be found, staff can recreate it.

  Paul Kane: (10:25) Hello all

  Paul Kane: (10:35) I'd like time to read it and consult with IANA and Verisign

  Paul Kane: (10:37) I do like the prescriptive format of this document - helpful to all

  Paul Kane: (10:38) Quesiton - how long does this take

  Paul Kane: (10:39) Why Ombudsman

  Paul Kane: (10:39) CSC?

  staffan Jonson: (10:42) If Ombudsman is optional most must be happy with it

  staffan Jonson: (10:43) most TLD:s must be happy with it

  Paul Kane: (10:43) Can be an option as can CSC

  Paul Kane: (10:46) agree

  staffan Jonson: (10:47) Lets dim them in grey

  staffan Jonson: (10:47) They're just for not forgetting the aspect

  staffan Jonson: (10:47) ICG mig edit them away

  Avri Doria: (10:47) they seem to be real touchy about us seeiming to presume anything about them.  but i will acqeisce on this whichever way it goes.

  Berry Cobb: (10:57) maybe 2B "On as needed basis"?

  Paul Kane: (10:58) Agree - may is good

  staffan Jonson: (10:59) agree with "may"

  Avri Doria: (11:11) DT-N currently list the review of the audit is a CSC activity.

  Berry Cobb: (11:13) @Avri, DT-C discussed...no decision, that Peridoic Review be a type of AoC, multi-stakeholder idea...not performed by CSC.  Stephanie will add this as an option for the DT-N doc.  She has a few other actions to update DT-N with.

  Avri Doria: (11:13) i think that one is in there already, but you may be right.

  Paul Kane: (11:15) RFP is an escallaiton step

  staffan Jonson: (11:16) Golden bylaw is a good alternative to spilling the board

  Paul Kane: (11:17) Avri - agree :-)

  staffan Jonson: (11:17) agree that an RFP is an escalation step

  Marilia: (11:17) Hello, I have another meeting in 5 minutes so I need to go

  Berry Cobb: (11:19) Marilia, thank you again for helping us out.  Please let Marika and I know about the flowchart soft copies.

  Marilia: (11:19) I will do soon

  Marilia: (11:19) thanks!

  staffan Jonson: (11:20) Thank You Marilia

  Berry Cobb: (11:26) 6. Initiate RFP process [mechanism yet to be defined]?

  Paul Kane: (11:27) That is VERY prescriptive.  Can we keep it lighter

  Paul Kane: (11:28) Agree with Berry - let's reflect

  Berry Cobb: (11:29) 6. Initiate RFP or Process [mechanism yes to be defined] [Pending Legal Advice & Fundamental Bylaw definition in CCWG]

  Paul Kane: (11:30) Yes

  staffan Jonson: (11:30) yes

  Avri Doria: (11:31) personal i think that process could be something like call together a CWG (simlar to this one) to frame, intiatie and run an RFP process.  but i can wait to suuggest this.

  Avri Doria: (11:31) and that this would be enshirned in an enduring bylaw

  Avri Doria: (11:31) anyoen can, except a staff member

  Paul Kane: (11:32) There may be for ccTLD that are NOT part of ICANN

  Avri Doria: (11:32) the ccTLD can, they may not want to.  any customer of iana can.

  Paul Kane: (11:33) No - some ccTLDs operated by Governments will not want to play in ICANN space

  Avri Doria: (11:33) i understnd they dont want to, but it their choice.

  Paul Kane: (11:33) Iwill ask ccTLDs

  Avri Doria: (11:33) as a protocl author, e.g., i can go to the ombudsman abotu problems with my directories.

  Brenda Brewer: (11:33) yes, I'm still here.

  Berry Cobb: (11:34) Brenda, you will capture the notes on the right, yes?

  Brenda Brewer: (11:34) yes

  Brenda Brewer: (11:34) thank you so much!

  Avri Doria: (11:34) of course never even got close to needing to.

  staffan Jonson: (11:34) Thank You all!

  Berry Cobb: (11:34) Thank you all.