Agenda

1. Opening Remarks (including recap)

2. DT-A (SLE) 

3. DT-C (CSC)

4. DT-M (Escalation)

5. AOB

6. Closing Remarks

Notes

1. Opening Remarks (including recap)

Worked our way through DT-O, DT-B, DT-N. Agreed to the recommendations of those DTs 

Question from Chuck on whether the CWG should submit public comments or not. 

--> agreement from the group to do this. 

Action (Chairs): submit DT-O recommendations to mailing list for confirmation (no objections). Then, Chairs will submit to Public 
Comment on Budget & Operating Plan

2. DT-A (SLE) 

IANA has asked the DT-A to amend the workflow chart, and  DT-A has agreed to do so, pending a DIDP for the workflow chart. 

Action (Paul): send email update today after DT-A call. 

3. DT-C (CSC)

• Do not believe that the CSC should get involved in individual complaints between registries and IANA
• Would it be useful for the CSC to at least be notified or made aware of the complaints? Yes and that's the case in  document
• Note that there is a DT-M escalation step that involves CSC, so if CSC does not want to be involved, DT-M needs an alternative
• Include text in draft about "mutually agreed timescales"
• Could CSC be empowered to trigger a ad-hoc/emergency/special review? --> The review could be triggered at the end of an escalation path 
• CCWG is building enhanced appeals mechanisms --> issue for DT-M (escalation)
• DT-N assigned elements to the CSC. Is DT-C ok with these assignments (such as audits, etc). 

Conclusions so far: Need for a trigger for the Periodic Review that is outside of the regular 5 year period. CSC should have a role to play, 
but cannot be the only group to make that decision. 

4. DT-M (Escalation)

CSC is not involved in Phase 1. Proposal for CSC to be informed in Phase 2 and allow for CSC involvement if desired. ---> currently DT-C does 
not envision the CSC being involved. 

5. AoB  - none

6. Closing Remarks

Three critical actions/issues: 

• DT-A requirement to close the gap on proposed SLEs, the current IANA SLAs, and to discuss this with the IANA team for post-transition 
• DT-C -- does DT-C accept the responsibilities implied in the table of reviews arising from DT-N
• DT-M -- does DT-C accept the role proposed for it (by DT-M) in Phase 2 and Problem Management (Annex Z)? If not, how will this role be handled

Action Items

Action (Chairs): submit DT-O recommendations to mailing list for confirmation (no objections). Then, Chairs 
will submit to Public Comment on Budget & Operating Plan

Action (Paul): send email update today after DT-A call. 

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #36 13 April.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #36 13 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5b42ubw71y/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-1500-13apr15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (4/13/2015 09:42) Hello and welcome to th CWG IANA meeting #36 on 13 April.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:55) hi there

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (09:55) Hello all!

  Allan MacGillivray: (09:56) Well, hello again!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:56) :-)

  jorge cancio GAC (Switzerland): (09:57) hi again ;-)

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (09:57) Hello all

  Staffan Jonson: (09:59) Hi all

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:00) Hello again.

  Robert Guerra: (10:00) Hi all

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:00) Hello (again) everyone.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:01) Hi all -- starting soon

  Brenda Brewer: (10:01) Seun Ojedeji is currently on phone line only.

  Matthew Shears: (10:01) Hi

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:01) hi all

  Greg Shatan: (10:01) Good morning/afternoon/evening, all!

  Alan Greenberg: (10:01) Greetings once again.  Said with minimal enthusiasm.

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (10:02) Hi

  Paul Kane: (10:03) Hi- can you hear me?

  Alan Greenberg (Alan): (10:04) DId not hear you Paul

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:05) Paul was very faint

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:05) Greetings all

  Marika Konings: (10:10) As a reminder, the two recommendations of DT O are: 1.          The IANA Function’s comprehensive costs should be transparent for any future state of the IANA Function.2.     Future FY ICANN Operating Plans & Budgets, and if possible even the FY16 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget, include at a minimum itemization of all IANA operations costs in the FY ICANN Operating Plan & Budget to the project level and below as needed.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:14) I would think it could go as a Statement from the Chairs

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:15) I would also encourage any of the CO's  and AC/SOs  who wish to(as well as any other individuals or groups)   to quote these recommenations in their own inout inot this PC for Budget FY16

  Alan Greenberg (Alan): (10:16) @Jonathan, That is why I was suggesting a differnet approach. It allows you to state a fact without saying this is an as-yet endorsed recommendation.

  Alan Greenberg (Alan): (10:16) as yet UNendorsed.

  Avri Doria: (10:16) question for future discussion:  on an outcome from the DT-N meeting.  We talked about triggers for an RFP and there seemed to be a general sense that such triggers and mechanism for RFP should exist..  Do we need a DT for recommendations on this issue. I.e what recommendations do we make about RFP and their methods of being triggered.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:17) Public comment on budget ends on 1 May: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy16-2015-03-18-en

  Avri Doria: (10:17) not looking to discuss now, just don't want it to get lost.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:17) Thanks.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:22) Re. DT-A SLEs, it is very important that they are included in what goes out for public comment.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:24) Agree with Paul

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (10:24) Hell yes!

  Greg Shatan: (10:25) Agree as well.  This is no longer a govt contract.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:25) There are reasonable ways to account for exceptional service problems in SLEs, e.g., 95% performance thresholds.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (10:26) What can be proposed without IANA's agreement?

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:29) It seems to me that one can propose a service level entirely about publicly-visible results

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:30) That could be proposed without IANA's agreement

  Suzanne Woolf: (10:30) Andrew +1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (10:30) makes sense to me as well

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:30) That ought to take the flowchart out of the blocked path

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (10:32) indeed  @Alan

  Robert Guerra (mobile): (10:32) +1 to Suzanne and Andrew

  Greg Shatan: (10:34) Perhaps Theresa Swinehart can help "facilitate" this IANA contact?

  Alan Greenberg (Alan): (10:35) With due respect to ICANN formal processes, we should NOT even be told to submit a DIPD. We should have reasonable access, with non-disclosure if needed.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:37) Is ICANN Legal aware of the short timelines and the urgency of the request?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (10:40) Absolutly sensible @Donna

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:41) Agreed to within reason as Jonathan said.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:44) Reminder: reading list with all docs is here: https://community.icann.org/x/vCMnAw

  Matthew Shears: (10:48) where do issues from the CSC get escalated to?

  Matthew Shears: (10:53) thanks yes

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:54) I think that the escalation path is quite reasonable and very much in line with commercial escalation paths between friendly corporations that have all the incentives to work well together

  Staffan Jonson: (10:58) Remedial is good initially

  Donna Austin, RySG: (10:58) Remedial Action Plan is how we have referred to it.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (11:00) I have to sign off  now for a conflicting call.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:00) timescales depend on the nature of the problem

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:00) hence as Donna says we need to negotiate

  Lise Fuhr: (11:01) Bye Holly

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:03) The GNSO and ccNSO, for example could raise through the new enhanced accountability processes

  jorge cancio GAC (Switzerland): (11:05) I guesss that the interplay between CSC and "PRF" still has to be discussed

  Staffan Jonson: (11:06) Principle is minimizing the group.

  Matthew Shears: (11:16) surely review would come as a result of a faiiure of remedy?

  Robert Guerra (mobile): (11:17) should the csc request for "review" need to endorsed , or allowed to be done directly

  Allan MacGillivray: (11:17) "Special Review"

  Matthew Shears: (11:18) but what process does the CSC have to go through to decide triggering a review

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:18) wouldn't it be better to go through the SOs?  Otherwise it is up to just three people!

  Avri Doria: (11:19) No should but could. could also trigger other stuff.

  Allan MacGillivray: (11:19) Could the CSC 'seek a spaecial review"

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:19) @Greg:  +1  Review at end of escalation path

  Matthew Shears: (11:19) yes + 1 to escalation path

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:19) @Greg: what's the distinction between a CSC and a multi-stakeholder review?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (11:20) +1 Greg & the initiation for a review should be done by a multistakeholder committe

  Matthew Shears: (11:20) agree Olivier

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:20) and then it would be better to do in the community - hence gnso and/or ccnso

  Staffan Jonson: (11:20) CSC may at the end of an escalation process reccomend/initiate (however not decide). So we won't avoide the decision on an MRT/PRF

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:20) which can then go out more widely

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:20) As part of the Charter, DT-C provides the following: The CSC may receive complaints from individual registry operators regarding the performance of the IANA naming function; however, the CSC will not become involved in a dispute between the registry operator and IANA.

  Robert Guerra (mobile): (11:21) we might want to envision "emergency" review that requires prompt action due to error, or security / stability situation that arises

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:21) Sorry, I copied the wrong bit: In the event performance issues are not remedied to the satisfaction of the CSC, despite good-faith attempts to do so, the CSC is authorised to escalate through the ccNSO and GNSO using agreed consultation and escalation processes.

  Matthew Shears: (11:22) the escalation path from CSC to PRF/MRT - how does that fit with escalation up through the chain of command of IANA

  Greg Shatan: (11:23) As a unistakeholder group, the CSC lacks typical multistakeholder checks and balances.  As such it should not be empowered without a process that involves the rest of the community.

  Matthew Shears: (11:23) + 1 Greg

  Greg Shatan: (11:23) CSC absolutely has a critical role; but it should have a filter.

  Greg Shatan: (11:24) +1 to well defined escalation paths.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:25) @Greg: are you suggesting that there has to be an ability for the community to challenge the view of the CSC? I'm not saying this to be antagonistid--just tyring to understand where we are.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:25) antagonistic

  Grace Abuhamad: (11:30) This is a different document for discussion. You can download the document from Wiki

  Grace Abuhamad: (11:30) reading list with all docs is here: https://community.icann.org/x/vCMnAw

  Greg Shatan: (11:33) I would think of it as a review rather than a challenge -- and not for every action of the CSC. I see it not as an antagonistic process but rather a workflow process.  I hope the CSC doesn't become a group with an antagonistic relationship with the community!

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:34) @Greg: that's not what I was suggesting being antagonistic--that reference was to my question to you not to be interpreted as antagonistic.

  Greg Shatan: (11:35) @Donna, understood, but it seemed a good word to borrow for the point I was trying to make as well.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:35) agreed, it did not seem out of place.

  Matthew Shears: (11:36) So the Customer Serivce Compaint process is what the CSC would kick off with the IANA team

  Marika Konings: (11:38) @Matthew - only phase 2. The Customer Service Complaint Process is currently already in existence (see http://www.iana.org/help/escalation-procedure.)

  Marika Konings: (11:38) phase 1 does not involve the CSC at all

  Staffan Jonson: (11:41) So who should handle the multistaekholder input? and in what form?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:44) Do we have any stats on the extent to which the IANA Customer complaints are resolved now?

  Staffan Jonson: (11:46) Donna: Without having stats, I would argue that an CSC isolated to direct operational issues might handle the majoroty of issues

  Marika Konings: (11:47) If I recall well, none of the recent complaints were escalated beyond the IANA team (but Chuck can correct me if I am wrong)

  Marika Konings: (11:48) with regard to number of complaints, I think from October last year, 10 issues had been submitted via the email system (again, if I recall well)

  Matthew Shears: (11:51) So the IANA specific PMEP could escalate to a accountability related nuclear option being worked on by the CCWG?  Doesn't that further undermine separation between the IANA operations and ICANN?  Are we comfortable that we may end up (in an extreme situation) spilling the board for a matter that should probably be addressed by an IANA specific option for example to change out the IANA operator

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:52) I would agree with Martin that it should be dealt with through an established process, rather than on a smaller scale.

  jorge cancio GAC: (11:54) Should'nt the CSC report to the "PRF" in case of a "massive" problem with the IANA function?

  Chuck Gomes: (11:56) @ Martin & Donna: What established process?

  Greg Shatan: (11:56) I am concerned with escalating to a "generic" multistakeholder body, rather than an IANA-specific "fit for purpose" multistakeholder body, like the PRT/PRF.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (11:57) so would you say there should be a specialised committee to deal with this?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (11:57) I can't see the CSC being burdened with this due to conflicts, both judging another TLD's affairs but also in case the affected TLD is in the CSC

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:57) The CCWG was looking at an independent review process as one of its mechanisms.

  jorge cancio GAC: (11:58) well there is still the task pending of linking the general CCWG community powers with the multistakeholder element in CWG - perhaps the "PRF" could be a "function" or a specialized committee of the "community power" still to be defined by CCWG

  Staffan Jonson: (11:59) But as long as such policy is defined within SLE/SLA it is clearly defined already

  Andrew Sullivan: (11:59) Some of the policies are not technical standards, but good conventions.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:00) Perhaps if we had clarity around the type of complaints we are envisaging that might help.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:00) i'd like to have anidea of what is grounds for complaint

  Avri Doria: (12:00) The situation is, wheher operational practice or which protocl to use and when, who makes those decsions? and who has oversight over those decsions.

  Staffan Jonson: (12:01) Ground for complaints is policy defined in SLA/SLE and IETF standards.

  Avri Doria: (12:01) the operational practice or protocl may a technical artifact, but the question about deciding to use it, is a policy issue.

  Staffan Jonson: (12:02) Avri: Mm you've got a point.

  Avri Doria: (12:02) does IETF creating a standard related to DNS, mean that IANA MUST implement and deploy?

  Staffan Jonson: (12:02) However, minimizing CSC function may minimize that bridge

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:02) @Avri: plainly not, since there'd be all the stuff about recursive

  Staffan Jonson: (12:03) Implementing standards has allways been voluntary (as far as I know at least)

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:03) But the IETF has things specific to the root zone, and indeed the IAB has also issued advice about the root zone

  Avri Doria: (12:04) and MUST IANA, vis a vis names,  accept that advice?

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:04) I think it would be an interesting time (and not in the good way) if IANA decided to ignore such advice

  Avri Doria: (12:04) but who decides.  and who decides whether they have done ttimely enought &c.

  Staffan Jonson: (12:05) Avri: Yes there's where MS input need to enter

  Staffan Jonson: (12:05) but hopefully not before that point in time

  Chuck Gomes: (12:05) Thanks all.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (12:05) Good  call thanks  everyone...

  Staffan Jonson: (12:05) Thank You all!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC  APRegional Member: (12:05) bye

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (12:05) bye

  Lise Fuhr: (12:05) Thank you all

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:05) bye niw

  Matthew Shears: (12:05) thanks!

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (12:05) thanks all

  jorge cancio GAC: (12:05) bye

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:05) now, even

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:05) Jonathan you have summarised this very well.

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (12:05) bye for now