Proposed Agenda 

1. Opening Remarks

2. Public comment

    a. Mechanics & process

    b. Implications for Design Teams/ CWG (whole)

3. Punch List  

    a. Review 

    b. Other open issues for DTs?

4. Forward planning (including high intensity)

5. Instructions to Sidley

    a. Costs to date

    b. Scope of work

    c. Role for Sidley in BA? 

    d. Future role? Implementation? 

6. AOB

     a. WSIS update (Olivier Crepin-Leblond)

7. Closing Remarks 

Notes

Schedule for high intensity (all times in UTC)

Thursday 28 May

11:00 - 13:00

15:00 - 17:00

19:00 - 21:00

Friday 29 May

07:00 - 09:00

10:00 - 12:00

14:00 - 16:00

Upcoming dates & milestones 

• 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting
• 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting
• 8 June -- submission to SO/ACs
• 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting
• 11 June -- absolute last date for SO/AC consideration for BA ("drop dead" date)
• 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires

Notes: 

Olivier on phone only for now

Lise sends apologies for today

1. Opening Remarks

Overview of agenda

2. Public comment

• • 53 submissions received -- possible more submissions until 23:59 UTC today (for translation extension)
  • CWG to review and consider the following questions: Any comments missed (in terms of action items)? Any actions that are already addressed? Any 
    incomplete responses?
  • These are draft responses provided by staff but subject to CWG-Stewardship review
  • Clarifications: 2 submissions (KISA and Norid) were duplicates and will be corrected shortly. These submissions were not duplicates in the review analysis. Also, for issues with reading PDF templates, please download & save the document (this should resolve the issue)
  • Freeze numbering as listed in 26 May version
  • Weighting comments by group/individual -- difficult to do, but perhaps best solution is to separate analysis by individual / group and see if there are any differences between those. 
  • Focus on substance of comments

Action: staff to collect actions and color-code for DT

3. Punch List  

Action: (Grace) to follow up with ICANN Legal for timeline of response for any question on Punch List that is pending response

Item:  PTI Board (item 4 and 5)

- Discussed, in context of PTI being subsidiary and separability, and holding ICANN accountable

What is missing a holistic view of where we are at the moment:

Need to capture where we are at this stage of discussion. 

Suggestion: ask Sidley such a document?

Put out a description of what we have, include key-decisions and main questions

Use Client committee to discuss

ACTION: Client Committee

Put out a description of what we have, include key-decisions and main questions.  Use Client committee to discuss

Item 20: SLE Update DT-A

DT-A work in conjunction with IANA to document properly.  Start with high-level approach.  Progress made.  Optimistic about reaching 8 June deadline

Item 6-10 , IANA Function review DT-N

Item 11- 16 A (CSC, DT-C)

Additional questions Sidley (highlighted in yellow)

Item 17 -19 Term Sheet

• • Based on first public document
  • Blue language : 
  • Black language: substantive items and comments to consider 
  • Comparison an differences to IANA contract
  • Reference to proposal
  • What kind of feed-back is expected?
  • Provide comments and responses to questions or make own revisions
  • Advise Sidley: (Set-up) Design team that is responsible for term sheet, to take up the pen.and revise this version. 

Challenge: no Design team assigned. 

Item for discussion: How to develop Term Sheet as part of implementation part of the proposal.

ITEM 30-31 RZM

Why are they on the Punch List? 

Suggestion to close them out

Suggestion  to be marked on Punch List

Item 32 to stay on list 

Re-format Punch List to make it more usable

4. Forward planning (including high intensity)

No comments

5. Instructions to Sidley

    a. Costs to date

    b. Scope of work

Is scope still accurate?

Is there future role (post submission to chartering organizations)?

    c. Role for Sidley in BA? 

    d. Future role? Implementation? 

6. AOB

     a. WSIS update (Olivier Crepin-Leblond)

CCWG IG closely works with ICANN. Session on Wednesday at WSIS, showcase ICG, CWG Stewardship, Crisp and IANAPlan groups.  

CCWG IG showcase work as well at IGF in November

Goal is to inform audience on process. 

First draft for panel to staff.

Question: provide feed-back in order to ensure process is adequately presented at WSIS, preferably by Wednesday COB.

7. Closing Remarks 

Call closed at 19.00 UTC

Action Items

Action: staff to collect actions and color-code for DT

Action: (Grace) to follow up with ICANN Legal for timeline of response for any question on Punch List that is pending response

ACTION: Client Committee:  Put out a description of what we have, include key-decisions and main questions

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #49 26 May.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #49 26 May.pdf

Recordings

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:   https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4te1u9v4bb/

The audio MP3 link is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-26may15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (5/26/2015 11:38) Welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #49 on 26 May.

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (11:53) hi all

  Nathalie Coupet: (11:53) Hi

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (11:55) Greetings CWGers!

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (11:56) ¡Hola a todos!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:59) hi.    all...

  Alan Greenberg: (11:59) Hello. 

  jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (12:00) hi everyone

  Greg Shatan: (12:00) Hello all.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (12:02) morning all

  Mary Uduma: (12:03) Good evening All

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (12:03) i have to drop early today (around the hour)

  Matthew Shears: (12:04) evenin'

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:04) Hello all

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:06) I like the characterization of good, bad and awful call times.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:12) we did not receive at Sidley a revised draft today of the document being discussed

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:13) For those of us who reviewed the prior version circulated on Friday, is there a way to highlight or note the comments that were are additions since the May 22 version.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:13) @ Josh:  Staff provided a compare version.

  Milton: (12:14) Can you tell me where these suggested replies are?

  Milton: (12:14) Right-hand column?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:15) @ Milton: They are in the last column of the review tool.

  Marika Konings: (12:15) correct - last column on the right

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:15) To CWG staff, please forward links to the clean and compare version of May 26.  Thanks

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:16) Are we still expecting comments from those dependent on translations?

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:16) The IAB didn't use the PDF tool because it didn't work relaibly across everyone's machine

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:17) @Sidley. I believe our intention is to get these processed to a point and then to communicate them with you. We can discuss on the client committeee call tomorrow. Our focus is on efficient use of your time.

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:17) so some people will be unable to scroll the responses, I think

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:17) at least, that was the problem we saw

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:18) Our concern is ability to review in time to be of assistance on the intensive calls, but if not necesasary ok with us.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:18) That would be fine Jonathan.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:20) We could post a preliminary/draft version of the tool.

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:20) @Holly. Please think about this in the context of effective use of your time and we can discuss tomorrow

  Milton: (12:20) Need more time to review these responses

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:20) Has Staff sent the latest versions of the tool to Sidley as requested by Josh?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (12:20) 249 pages in the review tool!!!!!!!!

  Paul Kane: (12:21) Also some responses may not have hit the 10% but they should be considered too

  Milton: (12:21) We might be able to productively discuss whether the basic PTI model has been accepted by the community or not

  Paul Kane: (12:21) China submitted a comment this morning

  Marika Konings: (12:21) @Paul - all comments are included in the public comment review tool

  Paul Kane: (12:21) thanks

  Milton: (12:21) agree, Alan

  Marika Konings: (12:21) the 10% only relates to the summary PPT

  Paul Kane: (12:21) Thanks Marika

  Greg Shatan: (12:23) Using Google Translate.... about 10 minutes.

  Greg Shatan: (12:23) (No endorsement express or implied.)

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:23) Thanks Grace.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (12:28) No need to collect comments by design team, but simply identify the section numbers that apply to each.

  Marika Konings: (12:29) Per DT may be difficult, but it should become pretty obvious if we take out all the comments that may not require further work?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (12:29) Perhaps we need to freeze the item numbers at this stage,

  Marika Konings: (12:29) or maybe I can colour code

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (12:29) Using xxx.1 to handle insertions.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:30) That will help Marika.  We could then take it a step further.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:31) Good idea Alan on freezing numbering.

  Paul Kane: (12:34) Jonathan +1

  Matthew Shears: (12:36) I think we could spend a whole lot of time spinning our wheels on individual vs entity comments - we don't have a huge amount of time

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (12:36) Support Milton on paying attention to substance of comments

  Milton: (12:38) At pace! tough, very tough I agree

  Milton: (12:38) So we need to go thru thgs with an eye on substance

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:38) sure, and categorization exercises typically evolve over time as you obtain greater understanding

  Matthew Shears: (12:39) + 1 Milton

  Marika Konings: (12:39) Fully agree - column three is just an attempt to have a summary, but everyone is encouraged to review the full comment to understand the details of the comment provided.

  Paul Kane: (12:40) Substance of comments most important

  Mary Uduma: (12:42) +1 Milton and Jonathan

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:45) Could we have a link to the current draft of the punch list? 

  jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (12:46) +1

  Milton: (12:49) well, what is the theory?

  Milton: (12:49) :-)

  Milton: (12:50) dont ask. don't tell

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:50) @Holly -- all the documents are posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:51) Staff has not been forwarding since we are awaiting instrcution from Client Com. Will resolve this on call Wednesday

  Milton: (12:52) I think it may be critical, both to the level of support for the proposal and for its actual accountability

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:52) That's basically the issue Milton.  After submitting the application, the IRS or CA FTB/AG could take it upon itself to review all of ICANN's status, not just for PTI.  Also, we were not sure what kind of revenue flows through PTI, to JR's second point.

  Milton: (12:52) PTI making a profit? risible. It's ICANN you might need to look at

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (12:56) Was that a Darth Vader moment?

  avri: (12:59) Greg, ICANN the Corproataion or ICANN the Community.  For me, under ICANN Community, yes, under the corproation, not so much.

  Greg Shatan: (12:59) I am referring to ICANN the Corporation.

  avri: (13:00) i understand and I very much think the answer is under ICANN the Community, Staff+the rest of us.

  avri: (13:00) or in milton's terms, ICANN in the Borader sense.

  Paul Kane: (13:01) Good point Avri - I think we should in future say ICANN Corporate or ICANN Community

  avri: (13:01) ... broader sense ...

  avri: (13:01) i am 100% behind oversight by ICANN Community

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:02) ANN for the corporation and Community for the community

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:02) ICANN for the corporation and community for the community

  avri: (13:03) we want to hold that entity repsonsible for that entity with our IFR and other mechanisms to control that.

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:03) The difficulty is that if one thinks the goal is to protect IANA from ICANN, then there might be a problem.  (Note that I don't have a strong view here, but if that's the threat model then ICANN's control is a problem.)

  avri: (13:04) We are the parent compamy

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:04) Insider meant a majority of insiders and outsider meant a majority or outsiders -- in both instances selected by the member which we thought to be ICANN

  avri: (13:04) ICANN does not eaual just the ICANN BoardStaff

  Brenden Kuerbis: (13:04) But ICANN also has the contract to restrain PTI?

  Matthew Shears: (13:05) + 1 Brenden

  avri: (13:05) ICANN is us.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:05) If ICANN does not select board then we no longer have hybrid model but instead a separate model

  Greg Shatan: (13:05) I believe I answered these, but if not: a board member not appointed by ICANN in its discretion is not an "insider".  A minority of the board can be outsiders, and have it still be an insider board.

  Paul Kane: (13:06) Wow - thanks Holly- that is VERY clear now....  Jonathan, please reatate

  Milton: (13:06) Holly: We are still discussing what it means for "ICANN" to select the board

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:07) It seems we are reopening the fundamental issue that we thought to resolve in Istanbul re whether this is a ybrid entity or a separate entity

  Milton: (13:07) No we re not

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (13:08) Please remember that if we decide that the multi-stakeholder community selects the PTI Board, then we need to introduce the same level of controls and accountability mechanisms over that PTI Board as have been created for ICANN.  This includes dealing with Members vs Designators, unincorporated associations, and issues reserved to the Members, if any.  It seems there have been numerous accountability measures that are being developed by CWG to provide substantial community oversight and tools for remediating deficiencies.

  Milton: (13:08) We are asking whether the insider board can be constituted by the ICANN community

  Milton: (13:08) Josh: that's just wrong

  avri: (13:08) Holly, I do no tbleive that is the case.  I think you rdefinition exaggerates the effoect of the apppointment being done by the Board based on bylaws that require community names for them to appoint.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:08) II am really not trying to re-open the structure issue, and am happy to keep PTI, but then we need to structure its Board to be effective.

  Milton: (13:08) There is a contract and a review mechanism. And the board members could be selected by ICANN based on recommendations of the SOs

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (13:09) We have to remember that by separating it means canceling the contract and as so the affiliate is not longer there. The operation is moved to another company that can do it. The stewardships satys in ICANN

  avri: (13:09) turning the hybrid into an insider option is problematic.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:09) The concept of the "contract" I reallt don't understand. Is it really likely that ICANN will sue its fully-controlled PTI?

  Greg Shatan: (13:10) We seem to have put the DeLorean into reverse.

  Matthew Shears: (13:10) we need to keep PTI and just be more flexible in the membership

  Matthew Shears: (13:11) @ Greg - future to the back?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:11) Greg, you have highlighted the problem. We are building a DeLorean instead of a practical car to move us around.

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:11) @Alan: one of the things that has made the IETF uneasy about getting directly involved in PTI (or ICANN) is that we are a customer, and it's awkward to have both a customer and a fiduciary  relationship to an organization

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (13:11) The argumnet that the operation should be moved out to an affilliate to keep th e policy work in one place and the operation in another is unconvincing. Afetr all, IANA has performed its operations where it is rigth now for many years now

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (13:12) I agree, Jonathan - as I understand the proposal the PTI Board would not be able to frustrate the will of the community manifested in its powers to correct any major failure.

  Paul Kane: (13:12) Mark +1 :-)

  Milton: (13:12) ???

  Milton: (13:14) whatis Graham is RECOMMENDED by GNSO and approved by ICANN corp?

  Milton: (13:14) what if

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (13:14) 'Separation': I have addressed this in my commnets para. 2.

  avri: (13:15) Greg, I beleive you are unwindng the conversations since Istanbul

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (13:15) More generally, I am troubled by the time we spend on these conference calls rre.discussing the same questions, which had been closed.

  Milton: (13:15) Eduardo: you are overlooking the rather obvious fact that the NTIA contract required IANA to be separate from policy work

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (13:16) I shall have to leave the call shortly for the coterminous EURALO call today.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (13:16) Having a PTI internal board, as Greg just described  is like having the IFO as internal to ICANN as it is now with just a legal conduit in the middle.

  Greg Shatan: (13:16) Avri, I have to disagree.  I think I'm trying to hold the course.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (13:17) @Milton: But IANA is separated from the poliy work as is the IT department in ICANN. Both are maily operational

  Brenden Kuerbis: (13:17) @Greg if PTI board members were RECOMMENDED by GNSO, etc. and approved by ICANN corp, would that be workable?

  Milton: (13:17) Nothing but the NTIA contract keeps IANA out of policy and policy out of IANA, at the moment

  avri: (13:17) We ought to remeber that what we are arguing is one person either way - to make a majority.  I think there need to be more ICANN community appoitments than ICANN Board Staff appointments to this board.

  Matthew Shears: (13:17) @ Eduardo - the threat of NTIA will no longer be there

  avri: (13:17) a lot of comments are concerend about a ICANN Corproate control PTI.  that is just an inside solution.

  Greg Shatan: (13:18) So comments are concerned about having PTI as a subsidiary of ICANN?  Hmmmm.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (13:19) @MAthew: But the stewardshiop will always reside in ICANN so the affiliate is just an operator which can be change to another company if it needs to be

  Milton: (13:19) Greg: several comments are asking a) what is the point of a separate legal entity and b) would support more separation (e.g., Italy, Internet NZ)

  Matthew Shears: (13:20) I think we first need to agree the responsibiltlies of the PTI Board do?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:20) +1 Chuck

  Paul Kane: (13:20) Matthew +1

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:21) agreed Alan

  Paul Kane: (13:21) We ALL support ICANN .... but can we move on for now and come back to this later

  Milton: (13:21) It's not a MS board anyone is asking for. It's a board that reflects names,numbers and protocols customers

  Matthew Shears: (13:22) its a board that has the appropriate skills to do what it id supposed to do

  Greg Shatan: (13:22) @Brendan, how many candidates would you propose be submitted for each seat?  If it's one, the recommendation concept is useless, if it's 10, maybe it works, but I doubt it.

  avri: (13:22) i am asking for an MS selcted board. not an MCS board.  I am asking for ta mjority be from the ICANN Commuity.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (13:22) @Milton: I beleive numbres an protocol want to contrcat with ICANN not with the affilliate

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:22) @Matthew. RIGHT!

  avri: (13:23) 3:2  or 2:3 is the issues

  Greg Shatan: (13:23) numbers and protocols have so far opted out.  They are content to remain customers and not join the commune.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:23) IANA provides a satisfactory service to its direct customers now and we don't want that compromised by undue interference or bloated bureaucacy

  Milton: (13:23) Eduardo: that is correct. PTI is an unknown entity for them. They would probably contract with PTI directly in the future after it is established

  avri: (13:23) Donna those are FUD terms.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (13:24) @Donna, so what is wrong about taking the people who oversee it now, and making them the bulk of the Board?

  Greg Shatan: (13:24) I think we need some definitive advice from Sidley -- and responding "wrong" when they give it doesn't make it any less right.

  avri: (13:24) specifically :undue interference or bloated bureaucacy:

  Greg Shatan: (13:24) Just need appropriate intereference and a right-sized bureaucracy.

  Milton: (13:25) Greg: it's a policy decision not a legal decision. The lawyers have made it clear that either way can work

  avri: (13:25) the notion that Registries see the registrants and users as an interferance is very problematic.

  Milton: (13:25) And Greg, you STILL haven't told us why a nomination approval process is not "insider" nor has Sidley-Austin

  Greg Shatan: (13:25) It doesn't work within the affiliate concept if the board is an outside board.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:25) @Alan, nothing, that is the basis of the rysg comments.

  Milton: (13:26) Greg: you are still ducking the wiggle room regarding how "insider" it is

  Greg Shatan: (13:26) Because ICANN needs to be able make the appointment in its discretion.  A nomination process takes away their discretion.

  Milton: (13:26) No it doesn't/ They can reject

  avri: (13:27) The Board can appoint those that are nominated.

  Milton: (13:27) The board can elect to accept the nomination process, in its discretion ;-)

  Greg Shatan: (13:27) Then it is the those who nominate (essentially designators) who control the identity of the candidates.

  avri: (13:27) that is what internal to ICANN means.

  Milton: (13:28) designators are not part of ICANN then? Pretty screwy legal theory if you ask me

  Greg Shatan: (13:28) No, internal to ICANN means that ICANN makes a choice in its discretion.  Even a nomination process limites their discretion.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:28) @Avri: without understanding what it is the PTI Board will be doing, I believe that we are opening IANA up to undue interference and bloated bureaucracy. A proposal has been developed that allows for m-s review and monitoring and escalation paths. I would rather that day to day PTI operations is not too far removed from what it is now.

  Milton: (13:28) well, that's an extreme view.

  Greg Shatan: (13:28) No the designators are not part of the corporation.

  avri: (13:29) Donna, i understand that.

  avri: (13:29) I just found the previous langauge rather inflammatory

  Milton: (13:29) Donna: you don't think appointing and removing board members in the board's discretion opens up IANA to interference?

  Greg Shatan: (13:30) I don't think it's extreme.  I think it is inherent in the definition of an inside appointment.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:30) @Jonathan on DT-C questions, this is the first I've seen this, so will review.

  Milton: (13:30) So at a minimum, Greg, nothing would prevent a minority of the board from being appointed by outsiders, is that correct?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:31) @avri, apologies for any inflammatory language.

  Matthew Shears: (13:31) I don't understand the need for the escalation step in 6 - why ccan't the CSC just sek a SIFR

  Matthew Shears: (13:31) rather thn going to ccNSO and GNSO

  Greg Shatan: (13:32) @Milton, you are correct.  An inside board just needs a majority of inside appointments.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:32) Very minor point but note that our name is mispelled throughout this draft of the punch list -- We are "Sidley"

  Greg Shatan: (13:33) You have also been Sibley from time to time....

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:33) @Matthew: at the time the CSC undertook their work SIFR was not finalised. we used ccNSO and gNSO as the default in the absence of any alternative.

  Matthew Shears: (13:33) so does it go straight to SIFR now?

  Greg Shatan: (13:34) SIFR is a major step and needs broad support to commence.

  Milton: (13:34) Holly: must be an Australian writing than doc ;-)

  Greg Shatan: (13:34) It's my understanding that ccNSO and GNSO are still in the path.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:35) @Matthew: no, still ccNSO and gNSO, who could decide to escalate to SIFR or perhaps deal directlyy with the Board oin the first sinstance

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:35) in the first instance, so ccNSO and gNSO would have some flexibility to approach.

  Matthew Shears: (13:35) ok - deal PTI Board you mean?

  Paul Kane: (13:36) @Donna - we MUST have concern/regard for Registries that are not members of ccNSO and gNSO

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:36) no ICANN Board.

  Matthew Shears: (13:37) so the CSC will have exhausted appoaches to PTI Board?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:37) @Paul, I understand the concern, but we were trying to work within existing structures

  Paul Kane: (13:38) @Donna - All registries are equal, some are NOT more equal than others :-)

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:38) @Matthew: correct, the CSC will have a working relationship with PTI staff, in order to resolve performance issues the CSC can escalate to VP IANA, President GDD and ICANN President and CEO or ICANN Board. Please understand that at the time this was developed there was no PTI Board and little discussion around it.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:39) @Paul, I know, and perhaps you can suggest a solution as to how this could be dealt with.

  Paul Kane: (13:41) @Donna - will do, let's think on it and come back to you

  Matthew Shears: (13:43) ok - I guess I just want to be sure that we have escalation paths that escalate from IANA functions team to the PTI Board (whic is responsible for the IANA team's performance (I assume) before jumping to the contracting party (ICANN)

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:43) and that escalation path does exist

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:44) Should an escalation step to the PTI Board be added?

  Greg Shatan: (13:44) Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think the escalation path runs through the PTI board, nor should it.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:45) @Chuck, we need to reconsider once we know if there is a PTI Board and what it's remit is.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:45) BTW, I do not think that the head of the GDD would be involved in the escalation process for PTI.

  Matthew Shears: (13:46) @ greg - PTI boared is responsible for the iana fucntions performance no?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:46) @ Greg:  Why should the PTI Board be involved in the escalation process?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:46) I meant why shouldn't.

  Milton: (13:46) agree with Alan

  Milton: (13:46) 30 & 31 are no-ops

  Greg Shatan: (13:47) If the PTI Board is running PTI, that's far more than a minimalist board set-up.

  Paul Kane: (13:48) @ Greg.  Do remember IANA is TECHNICAL - if it does not work, then millions are impacted.  I expect registry managers to be able to reach out to ALL parties that can assist them resolve their issue

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:50) @Paul: you seem to be positing that the board will in fact be able to assist them, however, and in others' conception I think the idea is that they actually can't

  Greg Shatan: (13:50) Then it's not a "boring" board, it becomes an essential element in management and oversight of PTI, and ICANN's responsibility for PTI becomes far more attenuated.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:50) @ Greg: PTI board should not be running PTI but if there are problems they could be involved.

  Paul Kane: (13:50) @ Andrew - I agree with you :-)

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:50) It's also not true that if IANA does not work, then millions are affected right then.  There is nothing that IANA is doing that has an immediate online effect

  Paul Kane: (13:51) @ Andew ...??? A DS Record mess up ....??

  Paul Kane: (13:51) Ask the .GOV folks :-)

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:51) The root servers are what people are querying, if they need to, not IANA.  Similarly, the number allocations are in the future.  And the protocol registries are not queried directly either

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:51) what is true is that IANA could inject bad data

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (13:52) Or Veisign

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:52) but that's something that the processes are designed to detect and avoid before publication, which is the only correct way to handle this

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:52) since if you publish bad data it will get cached somewhere

  jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (13:53) yes

  Milton: (13:53) Greg: PTI board is managing IANA. I can't believe you would oppose that

  Milton: (13:54) You call for an accountable IANA, Greg, but that requires management. And the whole point of our proposal is to make IANA a legally separate operation

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:55) @ Greg/Milton:  Boards should not be managing in the day-to-day sense but they should deal with management problems.

  Milton: (13:56) @Andrew: IANA could inject bad data, or also refuse to update data that should be changed

  Milton: (13:56) Agree about boards, Chuck. This is why I am flabbergasted by Greg's insistence that the ICANN board be running IANA

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:56) @Milton: I suspect the problem here is an equivocation on "escalation".  If there's an escalation path for operational issues, presumably it does not go through the board

  Milton: (13:57) which board? ICANN or PTI?

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:57) if there's an escalation path for staff supervsion issues, proper achievement of job &c., then presumanly the PTI board ought to be on that path

  Milton: (13:57) yes

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:58) I have a 15:00 & must drop now

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:59) bye I am now in another call

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:59) Thanks all.

  Paul Kane: (13:59) Thanks all

  jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (14:00) thanks and bye

  Nathalie Coupet: (14:00) thank you

  Greg Shatan: (14:00) I'm not suggesting that the ICANN board take any interest in PTI greater than it doe3s in IANA.

  Milton: (14:00) It runs IANA now

  Mary Uduma: (14:00) Bye All

  Milton: (14:00) is that what you mean?

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:00) adios