Attendees:
Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Elise Lindeberg, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane (12)
Participants: Alan Greenberg, Alissa Cooper Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Sullivan, Chuck Gomes, Izumi Okutani, Jari Arkko, Jorge Cancio, Leon Sanchez, Maarten Simon, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Megan Richards, Nicholas Barbantonis, Rudi Vansnick, Suzanne Woolf (17)
Staff: Akrum Atallah, Alain Durand, Bart Boswinkel, Brenda Brewer, David Conrad, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings, Trang Nguyen, Xavier Calvez, Yuko Green
Apologies: Seun Ojedeji
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Agenda
1. Opening Remarks
2. Implementation Update
3. IANA IPR
4. CCWG-Accountability
5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG
6. AOB
7. Closing Remarks
Notes
Audio only: Eduardo Diaz, Alan Greenberg
1. Opening Remarks
- Packed agenda, so need to stick to time
- Desire to make progress on IPR issue in order to catch up with other operational communities
- Update on latest work of the CCWG-Accountability as it relates to the interdepencies
- DT-Leads have made progress on Bylaw related questions - may need to be picked up on list and forthcoming call depending on time available
- CRISP Team members will be joining the call to provide input on IANA IPR discussion
2. Implementation Update
- See slides presented during the meeting (see also https://community.icann.org/x/V4xlAw)
- Members of RZERC are chairman of ICANN Board, member of RSSAC, SSAC, rep from IETF, senior IANA manager, RySG rep, ccTLD rep, ASO rep and Root Zone Maintainer (see specification in CWG-Proposal)
- Implementation update will be regular item on future calls
3. IANA IPR
- Original proposal was silent on this issue and expected to be dealt with as part of implementation
- CRISP Proposal suggested that IETF Trust would take on IPR - CWG-Stewardship asked to confirm its view on this proposal
- Design Team formed to review and discuss - output was shared prior to the previous meeting and briefly discussed
- CWG-Stewardship Chairs have co-ordinated with other groups on progress being made
- Timeliness of CWG-Stewardship is important - other communities are expecting a response (both other communities support the CRISP proposal)
- DT-IPR Draft contains potential principles and requirements for owner of IANA Trademarks and Domain Names. DT-IPR didn't agree on single definition of 'neutral' (see principle 1) - two types identified structural neutrality and functional neutrality.
- Progress needs to be made on some of the key decision points outlined in this document. Definition of neutrality is one of the critical questions that affects other questions outlined in the document.
- Risk analysis is missing - what happens if everything falls apart? Least of concern will be trademark and domain names in the overall scheme of things. IETF is main group that has operational need for the domain name.
- Neutrality discussions seems to imply that communities have opposite interests which is not in line with the reality. Is there any evidence / rationale for which the owner needs to be neutral to mediate between the other communities which may be at odds?
- IPR solution needs to be in place by September in order for the transition to happen - need to decide which risk we are willing to take and what is practical. Transfer may not actually need to happen, but agreement on arrangement will need to be in place. View of ICANN Board may also be helpful.
- Important to have free and full discussion around the topic to ensure that will of naming community is known.
- Is too much time spent on this issue as path forward seems to have been identified that addresses concerns. IPR issue only becomes an issue when PTI fails to deliver service to the different communities. Higher priority should be given to the SLEs.
- Focus should be on procedure to deal with rare cases of disputes.
- Provisional conclusion that there is no need for structural neutrality which would require a new trust. Second reading of this topic expected for an upcoming meeting.
- Are any further decision points needed or does the focus shift now to the practical arrangements? IETF Trust now becomes the only option - need to look specifically at how to set up relationships and review example terms provided by the IETF.
Action item: Does anyone object or feel strongly differently about the provisional conclusion that there is no need for structural neutrality which would require the creation of a new trust?
Action item: Cross-Operational Coordinating Group to refine DT-IPR work based on the provisional conclusion and report back to the CWG-Stewardship.
Action item: Discuss within Cross-Operational Coordination Group whether the mailing list can become publicly archived.
Action item: Suzanne Woolf to inform the ICANN Board on the status of this discussion.
4. CCWG-Accountability
- Calls on a regular basis between CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Chairs
- Call earlier this week to discuss the status of the input provided by the CWG-Stewardship on the dependencies
- Meeting twice a week for 3 hours, no current timeline for delivery of the final proposal by the ICANN Board.
- New workplan shared on the mailing list, which includes work on the CWG-Stewardship input.
- CCWG-Accountability Chairs will share feedback on discussion of dependencies and input received from CWG-Stewardship following first reading which will require discussion on the list in order to be able to provide input, if any, prior to the second reading. Update will also be provided on the calls, but CWG-Stewardship will need to work proactively in order to not delay the CCWG-Accountability in its deliberations.
5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG
- Sidley prepared a draft of the Bylaws resulting from the CWG-Stewardship proposal. A number of questions were identified which were referred to the relevant 3 sub-team leads. First drafts have been received from the sub-team leads - all contained in same document.
- Avri (DT-N): reviewed all of the comments related to DT-N and shared first draft of responses with the DT-N mailing list. No major issues identified that required structural changes.
- Chuck (DT-M): provided responses to questions relating to DT M and shared those with the DT. No feedback so far. Full feedback is now required from the CWG-Stewardship and Sidley.
- Donna (DT-C): reviewed questions, but DT CSC only has one other remaining member left. Full review now required by CWG-Stewardship and Sidley. CWG-Stewardship should be able to review revised Bylaws to ensure these accurately reflect the responses provided.
- Some further work may be needed on questions
Action item: Share proposed responses to questions with CWG-Stewardship and Sidley for review
Action item: Review remaining questions that were not assigned to specific DT and determine how to respond
6. AOB
- Next meetings scheduled for Thursday 21 January and 4 February
- Replacement of Staffan Jonson as ccNSO appointed member - ccNSO is in the process of selecting a substitute representative. Probably by the next meeting a replacement will be identified.
- Currently no CWG-Stewardship meetings scheduled in Marrakech
- No intention to let biweekly call schedule lull work on IPR into a slower pace
- Prepare to get active on the mailing list
7. Closing Remarks
- Next meeting scheduled for 21
Action Items
Action item: Does anyone object or feel strongly differently about the provisional conclusion that there is no need for structural neutrality which would require the creation of a new trust?
Action item: Cross-Operational Coordinating Group to refine DT-IPR work based on the provisional conclusion and report back to the CWG-Stewardship.
Action item: Discuss within Cross-Operational Coordination Group whether the mailing list can become publicly archived.
Action item: Suzanne Woolf to inform the ICANN Board on the status of this discussion.
Action item: Share proposed responses to questions with CWG-Stewardship and Sidley for review
Action item: Review remaining questions that were not assigned to specific DT and determine how to respond
Transcript
Recordings
Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7a0ddsn96w/
MP3 recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/stewardship-transition/cwg-iana-12jan16-en.mp3
Documents
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (1/12/2016 09:07) Welcome all to CWG Stewardship Meeting #74 on 12 January 2016 @ 16:00 UTC!
Xavier Calvez: (09:58) Hello.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC - APRegional Member: (09:59) hi all
Lise Fuhr: (10:00) Hello All
Chuck Gomes: (10:01) Hello from California.
Greg Shatan: (10:01) Hello, all.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:01) Hi
Leon Sanchez: (10:11) Hello everyone
Marika Konings: (10:11) The slides can also be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/V4xlAw
Donna Austin, RySG: (10:13) Trang: is there a distinction between SLEs and SLAs?
David Conrad: (10:14) @Donna: the SLEs are the timings that are collected in order to base the actual service levels on real data.
David Conrad: (10:14) SLE = Service Level Expectations
Avri Doria: (10:14) Is the identity of the contractor worrking on this public?
David Conrad: (10:15) It is Viagenie
Donna Austin, RySG: (10:16) @David, and the SLAs?
Avri Doria: (10:16) thanks David
David Conrad: (10:16) SLA = Service Level Agreement, these would be the actual values for the service levels established in the contract
David Conrad: (10:17) We will be collecting the SLEs for a number of months, then compute what the actual service levels are to be for the SLA.
Alan Greenberg: (10:17) RZERC - neat name!
Donna Austin, RySG: (10:18) thanks David, I think I got it.
Jonathan Robinson: (10:19) I propose trademarking amd adding RZERC to the IANA IPR :-)
Alan Greenberg: (10:20) NAh, it is and ICANN committee!
Alan Greenberg: (10:21) Essentially the committee of wise people who can judge or identify people to judge changes.
Jonathan Robinson: (10:27) Greg. There is a little bit of a buzz on your aduio. It may be that the mic gain is turned up a little high.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:28) I completely disagree we don't need to pick now. We need to pick _yesterday_
Andrew Sullivan: (10:29) If the CWG can't make up its mind about this, it will never be able to proceed
Avri Doria: (10:31) and an analysis based on the fact that these 3 groups are harly likely to be able to create something new, and fit for porpuse, in any sort of reasonable time frame. the offer from the IETF trust seems good enough to this non lawyer.
Avri Doria: (10:32) lets satisfice and move on.
Alan Greenberg: (10:38) Yup.
Jari Arkko: (10:39) i'm also in agreement (perhaps ovbiuously), but of course it is essential that the 3 OCs get the rights they need in any agreement that is setup. That is central.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:40) I have to say that the secondary importance of the domain name strikes me as backwards . The tm is not the main issue for anyone, since we're not in any sort of branding exercise. We're in the business of publishing stuff on a web site
Jari Arkko: (10:41) I agree...
Avri Doria: (10:41) Me too
Jonathan Robinson: (10:42) So, how do we make sure that the domain name has the appropriate level of interest / importance?
Andrew Sullivan: (10:44) If I ran the circus, we'd figure out how we wanted to manage the domain name and then do whatever necessary in the trademark arrangements to make that possible
Suzanne Woolf: (10:47) @Andrew +1
Avri Doria: (10:49) what a radical concept, figure out what we need and agree on it.
Greg Shatan: (10:49) Andrew, I believe you were part of DT-IPR from the beginning...
Andrew Sullivan: (10:50) Yes, but the DT-IPR didn't seem to want to follow the approach I was advocating
Jari Arkko: (10:51) +1 to what alan said. domain names and trademarks are important, but if there was a problem[1][1][1][1][1] we could work around it...
Andrew Sullivan: (10:52) (which approach I think is entirely in line with what Alan just said and what Jari has proposed as well)
Alan Greenberg: (10:52) There is code embedded in devices with the domain name in it. THAT is the real vulnerability tooperational use of the Internet, and that is an IETF issue.
Alan Greenberg: (10:55) Owner should in fact have strong ties to the entity that has the most at stake if things blow up.
Avri Doria: (10:55) Neutrality was introduced as a concept becasue the people in the ICANN operational community did not trust ICANN to be neutral enough.
Avri Doria: (10:55) If they had, there probably would have been no issue. but i am guessing.
Alissa Cooper: (10:56) Fully understand the desire for the owner to be independent of the IANA operator. But that is different from independence/neutrality from the operational communities.
Alan Greenberg: (10:57) If we talk about the legal and theoretical issues, we will be here till it is too late to benefit from the results. What are the risks from doing it imperfectly?????
Avri Doria: (10:57) so perhaps that is the meaning of neutrality in this issuse - independent of tje IANA operator.
Mary Uduma: (10:58) I am sorry I had to leave for another meeting, I will read from the recordings.
Alissa Cooper: (10:59) Even the notion that the owner will be "steered" or "driven" more by one community than another presumes that one community will want to influence the owner to have the domain names or trademarks used in a way that is disadantageous for the other communities. That is the risk that I don't see materializing in any mildly likely scenario.
Alan Greenberg: (11:01) +1 to Andrew
Andrew Sullivan: (11:05) I do not believe that the RIRs agree with that "can be later"
Andrew Sullivan: (11:05) And I think they've already said that
Jari Arkko: (11:06) we, from the IETF, don't really care. but i worry that we need to have the IPR transfer in place to have a successful transition & no ability for others to pick the transition plan apart because of a missing part.
Alissa Cooper: (11:07) The ICG proposal requires that the trademarks and domain names not be associated with the IANA operator.
Andrew Sullivan: (11:09) I confess it's surprising to me that, given that I've been operating critical DNS infrastructure since 2001, I'm not part of "the names community", no matter how little time I spend at ICANN meetings
Alissa Cooper: (11:09) I think it will set a dangerous precedent to start selecting requirements from the transition proposal and deciding that they do not need to be complete prior to the transition.
Andrew Sullivan: (11:09) +1 Alissa
Jari Arkko: (11:10)
listening to the discussion and the chat room, i think the room seems to be ok with the milder form of neutrality... ie.. functional
Avri Doria: (11:10) Andrew: i think he said predominantly of the names community. gave me a moment of identiy crisis.
Greg Shatan: (11:10) Andrew, I didn't mean to make you not part of this community, but as a Trustee of the IETF and one who speaks (albeit informally), I tend to identify you with the IETF...
Jari Arkko: (11:11) +1 to overengineering (speaking as an established over-engineer)
Greg Shatan: (11:11) I think we've spent far more time on the SLEs than on the IPR (as is appropriate). It's not a competition...
Alan Greenberg: (11:11) For the record, I do NOT identify myself with the "names community" That is who houses and funds my involvement. My interests are to ensure that the Internet functions well for users. And that takes ALL aspects of the Interent resources.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:12) @Chuck +1
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:13) (but also without any skills in this area!)
Alan Greenberg: (11:13) I go back to risk analysis if everything does blow up. We will survive and the vast majority of the Internet community will not even notice!.
Avri Doria: (11:13) Alan and since ICANn covers NAmes and Numbers and At Large/ALAC can comment on both part of the ICANN coin, you are by definition not just of the Names commuity. But of the ICANN community which is not just names.
Avri Doria: (11:14) s/comment/advise/
Alan Greenberg: (11:27) +1 Greg
Andrew Sullivan: (11:28) I'm in favour of this
Lise Fuhr: (11:28) Got disconnected
Alissa Cooper: (11:28) Should the subgroup move its work to a public mailing list?
Andrew Sullivan: (11:28) I'm in favour of that
Lise Fuhr: (11:29) Back on the call again
Avri Doria: (11:29) Always in favor of opne lists, or at least lists with opne archives.
Greg Shatan: (11:30) I believe the subrgroup list is open, Alissa.
Jari Arkko: (11:30) handling this issue as a part of the plenary is fine. i'd love to get more feedback from DT-IPR members on the matter of setting up the detailed contracts. but we can do that on the main mailing list as well. and thanks greg & all.
Greg Shatan: (11:31) Or do you mean the coordinating group?
Grace Abuhamad: (11:31) the dt-ipr list is open, but i think Alissa was referring to another list
Greg Shatan: (11:31) Happy to do it either way.
Grace Abuhamad: (11:31) to be cretaed
Suzanne Woolf: (11:31) I just realized there are no other Board members here, so I won't speak for the Board but will draw this discussion to their attention. I don't expect a problem.
Jari Arkko: (11:31) re: alissa's point. i'm in favour of setting up a list for the ipr coordination team and making its archives public.
Greg Shatan: (11:32) I understand now and agree with Alissa.
Andrew Sullivan: (11:33) Thanks to everyone who participated in coming to a decision. I think that's marvellous progress! Special thanks to Greg for pressing hard to get the principles clear
Alissa Cooper: (11:33) +1 Andrew
Grace Abuhamad: (11:34) Can I re-purpose the DT-IPR mailing list, or do you want a brand new mailing list?
Alan Greenberg: (11:35) I have to drop off now. Bye all
Grace Abuhamad: (11:36) If the Cross-Operational Coordinating Group will possibly have more work than IPR issues, than it may be useful to have a new list. If not, it'll be faster and more efficient to re-pupose the existing IPR list.
Alissa Cooper: (11:38) the ICG previously had a discussion about a cross-operational community list for implementation, but there wasn't much interest beyond the IPR issue, so limiting it to that topic is probably fine
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:38) sounds very useful what Lise says
Paul Kane: (11:39) Lise +1
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:39) +1
Jari Arkko: (11:42) have to leave now for a different call and some snow-clearing before that... thanks all
Jonathan Robinson: (11:42) Thanks Jari
Avri Doria: (11:45) oh, i also send my answeres to the Dt-N, but only gave them a day for feedback since i got to the task so late.
Jonathan Robinson: (11:46) Can we create the feedback from the group and Sidley captured as actions please
Avri Doria: (11:47) We also need to do some work on answering the other questions they ask. those that were not DT specific.
Avri Doria: (11:47) i do not mean just the 3 of us.
Jonathan Robinson: (11:47) OK. Good point Avri. Let's capture that as an action for the CWG
Donna Austin, RySG: (11:50) There is a GNSO Council meeting at 21:00 UTC on the 21st.
Donna Austin, RySG: (11:51) 1600 UTC is much bettern than 1100 UTC.
Allan MacGillivray: (11:52) The ccNSO will choose the replecment at its meeting on Jna. 21
Greg Shatan: (11:52) We will need to move forward on the list with regard to the IPR issue and not let the biweekly call schedule lull us into a slower pace on that front.
Paul Kane: (11:53) Will do
Andrew Sullivan: (11:54) It certainly is good news in my opinion!
Chuck Gomes: (11:55) Thanks everyone.
Matthew SHears: (11:55) will be important to continue to ensure that the CWG's inputs are accounted for in the evolution of the CCWG's proposal
Andrew Sullivan: (11:55) Thanks all, a very good meeting IMO
Paul Kane: (11:55) Thanks all
Avri Doria: (11:55) bye
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (11:55) Bya all
Greg Shatan: (11:55) Goodbye all and thanks.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (11:55) thanks and bye!
Nicholas Barbantonis: (11:55) Thanks, bye
Matthew SHears: (11:55) thanks
Lise Fuhr: (11:55) Bye all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC - APRegional Member: (11:55) thanks all bye or now
