Transcript

Transcript CWG DT-C 10 April 2015.doc

Transcript CWG DT-C 10 April 2015.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p48twarb76o/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-dtc-10apr15-en.mp3

Notes

Mission

Includes language why it was established (first sentence)

Agreed

Include /change to : 

as it relates to monitoring the performance of..."

Last paragraph 

Agreed

Scope of responsibilities

First sentence (new) 

Agreed

 Change to fifth paragraph:

CSC is NOT a dispute mechanism

CSC may receive complaints (re statistics, etc.) NOT for individual cases. 

Staffan: DT M was not pleased with response ( see Staffan's email)

Martin: Useful to know, as to why DT M the CSC should go into details of other people problems DTM process approach, 

Martin: CSC part of potential forum shopping 

Staffan: Fear of forum shopping. 

Sooner or later, deadlock of each other

Donna: Potential issues may have arisen from one of the papers

According to this paper 

Stephanie: Question from Chuck ( DT M) whether escalation 

Raise issue at DT leads

New sentences As suggested by David

Martin: Generally agreement , suggested refinement of language 

"This consultation is expected to include any *proposed* changes to the IANA services that are underway or are anticipated in the future. "

Stephanie Strike underway.

Kurt: Retain expertise if necessary, expand the option.

Staffan: If CSC has an expended mandate, make it not too big

Donna: Await 

Donna: CSC is first and foremost a monitoring entity. 

On the other hand David C, changes

No Authorization

CSC can facilitate consultation, _. IFO should take it forward ad implementation is its responsibility. CSC should not be in the position.

Donna: 

DT CSC is uncomfortable with role of CSC to undertake a role in development 

There is a need for such a mechanism, but need somewhere else

The CSC has an overview role. Overview is typically problem oriented, a reactive function to mend what doesn't work in a predefined order. Development (innovation) of IANA functions is not necessary in the scope of the CSC (maybe rather in IETF)

Composition

Only change, accepted 

Terms: 

Recall of Members

New language: 

Agreed

Review

Separate the review of charter and effectiveness of CSC itself on -> one 

Martin: review of charter in two year.

Turn round: At the request CSC, GNSO or ccNSO

Service levels review targets> it is initiated in one of the annual meetings. Should be driven by need

Stephanie: agrees with Martin

Review of Service level targets will be most important piece of data for review service

Change second paragraph: can be done at request of CSC, ccNSO and GNSO

Final Sentence: should be picked - up though in annual meeting, or as part of review of SOW.

Martin:

Good point Kurt, if SL no longer appropriate -> to be raised. 

CSC should be able to raise issue and then go through consultation. CSC should not be put in a position to review every 18 month

Last paragraph:

The CSC or IFO, can request changes any time, any proposed 

Martin: replace "changes" -> review

Donna: need a reasonable quick process to change

-------- (04/10/2015 14:45) --------------------- 

Donna Austin, RySG: The CSC or the IFO can request a review or change to service level targets. Any proposed changes to service level targets as a result 
of the review must be agreed by the ccNSO and GNSO.

Add : in accordance with a pre-defined process

Include general sentence around mechanism to define and change processes (to be approved by GNSO and ccNSO) 

Action

Donna & Staffan Raise issues around

1. Potential overlap and divergence in interpretation of CSC with respect to its role in escalation process (limited view)

2. Placeholder for role in development/evolution  of (new) services. Potential conflict with strict monitoring role. However recognition role is necessary

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (4/10/2015 06:45) Welcom to the DT-C Meeting on 10 April.

  Staffan Jonson: (07:00) Hi all

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:00) Hi Staffan

  Staffan Jonson: (07:04) let's start with the clean

  Kurt: (07:04) clean version is good

  Bart Boswinkel: (07:05) It is scrollable for all

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar): (07:05) change looks ok to me

  Staffan Jonson: (07:05) yupp

  Kurt: (07:06) "as it relates to monitoring the performance of..."

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:06) The mission is will be achieved through regular monitoring

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:07) IS is superfuous

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:07) i'm just in on audio now!

  Staffan Jonson: (07:16) Agree Bart

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar): (07:16) i also flagged this discrepancy to chuck on DT M

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar): (07:16) yesterday, and he mentioned that he would take it back

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:21) "This consultation is expected to include any *proposed* changes to the IANA services that are underway or are anticipated in the future. "

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar): (07:21) if we are introducing proposed should we also strike underway

  Staffan Jonson: (07:23) Let's leave it right nopw

  Staffan Jonson: (07:23) and push on

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:24) good point, Stephanie

  Staffan Jonson: (07:24) Type of a second opinion

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:24) That's very operational, isn't it, Kurt?

  Staffan Jonson: (07:25) Yupp

  Kurt: (07:25) yes

  Kurt: (07:25) "operational" is in the first line of this charter

  Kurt: (07:26) "changes to IANA operations or services"

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:26) Yes, but it is monitoring, not taking action...

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar): (07:27) in the first sentence the second period should be plural

  Kurt: (07:27) "The CSC is authorised to retain the expertise necessary to oversee the changes"

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:27) I'm nervous about CSC taking what would then be decisions

  Kurt: (07:27) i think we should reopen that issue

  Kurt: (07:27) lets just talk

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:27) preempting the IFO's job!

  Kurt: (07:31) You should be able to amend the charter whenever you want

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:31) @Kurt, which is at the request of the CSC

  Kurt: (07:32) I agree with Martin, I think the Charter will be changed rarely but should be changed when it becomes necessary

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:35) "Thereafter, the Charter will be reviewed at the request of the ccNSO, the GNSO or the CSC."

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:36) and final para fine suggestion, Donna

  Kurt: (07:41) "The CSC can raise for review Service Level Agreements by the ccNSO and RySG and initiate a process"

  Kurt: (07:42) It's Martin's language - isn't it?

  Staffan Jonson: (07:43) regularily

  Kurt: (07:43) Don't say "may", say "can"

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:45) The CSC or the IFO can request a review or change to service level targets. Any proposed changes to service level targets as a result of the review must be agreed by the ccNSO and GNSO.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:46) +1 Ðonna

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:46) Good proposal Donna

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:47) good point

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:53) If we go back to the current system the NTIA ensures IANA actually does the properly consult the community on any changes - if the CSC is replacing the NTIA in this should it not replace this role?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:53) So the CSC  technically is responsible for making certain the performance of this function is done properly

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:54) Bernie, I think the issue here is that we are trying to keeping the remit of the CSC to monitoring, and while this was done by NTIA previously, the CSC is not as well resourced.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:54) yes exactly this is what I am proposing for this

  Kurt: (07:55) I don't think the CSC is "technically responsible" - I think it is a monitoring body

  Kurt: (07:55) there should be an authorization function

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:55) happy with monitoring body

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:56) but would object to authorisation

  Kurt: (07:56) they decided there should not be authorization of root zone changes

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:56) There is no authorization for changes to the Root Zone - we have not talked about changes in technology

  Kurt: (07:56) which was a mis-informed decision but nonetheless....

  Kurt: (07:57) but the other team did not discuss authorization of operations or services changes

  Kurt: (07:57) Martin wants to take the CSC out of the "line of blame" which is a very good idea

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:57) correct

  Staffan Jonson: (07:59) Yes CSC should be out of 'line of blame'

  Staffan Jonson: (08:01) “In the event a change in IANA services is anticipated, the CSC may *invite* an ad hoc committee of technical and other …”

  Staffan Jonson: (08:02) Indicating there is no right, nor no promise to taka help from the ad hoc committee

  Kurt: (08:02) I agree with Donna and Martin - IANA should provide independednt corroboration that the change is implemented compentently

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:05) I still think that the role of the CSC is to supervise that the IANA process has been properly followed

  Kurt: (08:06) Some one has to write a process / procedure to address David Conrad's concern that this review needs a home

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:06) Ah but there should be a process for how to bring in new services

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:07) yes

  Staffan Jonson: (08:07) Bernie: aagree that's what I tried to pronounce, I think

  Kurt: (08:08) this is an authorization role: NTIA authorized root zone changes and authorized shanges in operations

  Staffan Jonson: (08:08) So let's leave a placeholder for some other fnction to innovate development of DNS somewhere else

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:08) there should be an IANA process for doing so - the CSC 's role is like everything else to ensure IANA performs this properly?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:09) CSC cannot be responsible to carrying out the process

  Kurt: (08:09) "The CSC can raise proposed changes in operations for review and authorization"

  Staffan Jonson: (08:10) “The role of the CSC is *not* to ensure development of new features of IANA services, since that need a wider input from community.” ??

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:11) sorry no mike

  Kurt: (08:11) NTIA, Verisign and IANA work together and determine when changes can be "turned on"

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:13) I think this may be for DTF to request that IANA develop this process and that the CSC is responsible for monitoring that IANA actually follows it

  Donna Austin, RySG: (08:14) Bernie is DTF a Design Team?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:14) yes changing processes given removal of NTIA

  Donna Austin, RySG: (08:14) that would make sense

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (08:15) Like facilitation of dialogue wording

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (08:16) @Kurt:  "NTIA, Verisign and IANA work together and determine when changes can be "turned on"" isn't NTIA changed to ccNSO & RySG?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:16) yes and that should be part of the process that has to be developped by IANA

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:17) which can be monitored by CSC

  Kurt: (08:18) Staffan put it well

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:19) +1

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:19) +1

  Kurt: (08:19) "The CSC can raise proposed changes in operations for review and authorization"

  Staffan Jonson: (08:20) The CSC has an overview role. Overview is typically problem oriented, a reactive function to mend what doesn’t work in a predefined order. Development (innovation) of IANA functions is not necessary in the scope of the CSC (maybe rather in IETF)

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:21) sorry headset died

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:21) back now

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:22) sorry no mike

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:22) we can talk after the call

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:23) for some reason Adobe is not letting me talk

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:24) Agree with Bart

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar): (08:25) there are some changes to the language pre-istanbul

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar): (08:26) i would have concerns about including without revisiting

  Donna Austin, RySG: (08:26) I agree Stephanie, my intention was to make the two consisent. If Bernie and Bart think the Charter is adequate I'm happy to go with that.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar): (08:27) got it - thanks donna

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:30) Sound workable

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:32) bye

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar): (08:32) thanks!

  Staffan Jonson: (08:32) Thak You all