Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Elise Lindeberg, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Lise Fuhr, Maarten Simon, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Wanawit Ahkuputra (12)
Participants: Alan Greenberg, Alissa Cooper, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Sullivan, Chuck Gomes, Jiankang Yao, Jorge Cancio, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Philip Corwin, Sabine Meyer, Suzanne Woolf (13)
Legal Counsel: Josh Hofheimer, Sharon Flanagan, Yael Resnick (3)
Staff: Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Elish Gerich, Karen Mulberry, Nathalie Vergnolle, Trang Nguyen, Yuko Green, Xavier Calvez
Apologies: Seun Ojedeji, Jonathan Robinson
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Agenda
1. Status Update (Chairs)
2. Implementation Update
· Staff update
3. Key Issues (with Sidley)
· Naming Functions Agreement
· Services Agreement
· IANA IPR
4. Client Committee
5. AOB
Notes
1. Status Update (Lise Fuhr)
PTI bylaws work complete
Naming function agreement is work-in-progress
2. Implementation Update (Trang)
Full status update deck continues to be posted to Implementation web page.
3. Key Issues
3.1. Naming functions agreement
- Sidley has provided an updated legal issues list, currently being reviewed by ICANN, and asking for revised versions of both agreements as soon as possible.
- ccTLDs have a meeting later today to discuss Annex C (issue around co-responsibilities of ccTLDs)
- ACTION (staff): circulate Naming function agreement issues review table to the CWG mailing list
3.2. Services agreement
- Sidley asking to clarify how IANA technical staff will be handled? ICANN will be seconding IANA staff to PTI.
- DT-O reviewed Schedule A of the agreement and made suggestions to clarify the services being listed.
- ACTION (IOTF): provide comments within 24 hrs.
- ACTION (staff) : send comments from Chuck and Jonathan on Schedule A to Sidley thereafter.
3.3 IANA IPR
- Sidley examined what it entails if ICANN is counterparty to the Community Agreement.
- Group agrees to pursue with ICANN as counterparty (scenario 1), preferably with no changes to the bylaws.
- ACTION (Sidley): Draft the memorandum giving authority to ICANN.
- CWG needs to decide who the CCG representatives are going to be.
- Definition of the Names community needs to be provided in the Community agreement.
- ACTION (Greg Shatan): Make some suggestions through the CWG mailing list to get the discusssion started.
AOB
Additional CWG meetings will be scheduled in September.
Action Items
- ACTION (staff): circulate Naming function agreement issues review table to the CWG mailing list
- ACTION (IOTF): provide comments within 24 hrs.
- ACTION (staff) : send comments from Chuck and Jonathan on Schedule A to Sidley thereafter.
- ACTION (Sidley): Draft the memorandum giving authority to ICANN.
- ACTION (Greg Shatan): Make some suggestions through the CWG mailing list to get the discusssion started.
Transcript
Recordings
- Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5cjbox6zyt/
- MP3 recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/stewardship-transition/cwg-iana-25aug16-en.mp3
Documents
- CWG Update 25Aug16rev_TN[1].pdf
- Naming Function Agreement Review - PK BB SD Comments and ICANN responses.pdf
- CommunityAgreementCounterparty.pdf
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (8/25/2016 08:12) Good day all and welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #89 on 25 August 2016 @ 14:00 UTC!
martin boyle, Nominet: (08:59) Hi all
Elise Gerich: (08:59) hello
Sabine Meyer: (08:59) hello everyone
Elise Lindeberg, GAC: (08:59) Hi
Lise Fuhr: (09:00) Hello all from sunny Denmark :)
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (09:00) Hi all
Paul Kane: (09:00) Hi - just want to say that some ccTLDs have significant conerns with the current Agreements and there will be a ccTLD call tonight when I should be told more. I have asked for written comments/direciton and await the call for more discussion
martin boyle, Nominet: (09:00) have a good holiday, Lise?
Sabine Meyer: (09:00) Bonn feels a bit *too* sunny today...
Lise Fuhr: (09:01) Yes it has been good
Alan Greenberg: (09:02) No sun in Montreat today
Elise Lindeberg, GAC: (09:02) Paul , - what is the most difficult issues for some of the ccTLDs
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:02) Never too sunny for me; good thing I am in California.
Alan Greenberg: (09:02) I'll take some from Bonn if you can send it.
Yuko Green: (09:03) Hi everybody, we will get started shortly
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:03) I cn send some moonlight if you like Alan
Alan Greenberg: (09:03) Anything to brighted a dull, rainy day.
Sharon Flanagan: (09:03) I have only fog to offer from San Francisco
Alan Greenberg: (09:04) @Sharon, but still early there.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:04) I guess I should say it is a good thing I am in inland California.
Brenda Brewer: (09:04) The recordings are started
Greg Shatan: (09:04) Hello all!
Alan Greenberg: (09:04) I propose we alter the agenda to discuss solely weather around the world.
matthew shears: (09:19) + 1 Josh
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:27) +1 Martin
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (09:28) @Paul - Just to clarify, are you planning to deliver something to CWG or are you looking for a 'paper' to come from Sidley?
Paul Kane: (09:29) I HOPE to deliver a reply
Paul Kane: (09:30) Sidley made comments before which were helpful but shot down by ICANN Legal
Paul Kane: (09:30) So once we have heard from ICANN Legal and Sidley
Maarten Simon, ccNSO: (09:32) @Paul: in the ICANN response I see that they propose to change the text you've quoted.
Trang Nguyen: (09:34) @Paul: regarding section 5.3, the intent of that language is to prevent PTI from performing teh maintainer function. We see that the language is unclear and have confirmed that we will change the language of 5.3 to make it more clear that PTI is not authorized to perform the root zone maintainer services unless authorized by ICANN.
Greg Shatan: (09:34) Isn't the idea to give ICANN as the IANA the same responsiblity it had before regarding root zone changes? No more, no less?
andrew sullivan: (09:34) @Greg I thought so
Paul Kane: (09:34) YES ...
Paul Kane: (09:34) That is the point
Paul Kane: (09:35) Thanks Trang - I will convey that
martin boyle, Nominet: (09:37) Is the issue that the middle column of 5.3 a on the limits to what ICANN could reject?
Paul Kane: (09:37) Not suggesting change - capturing status quo
Paul Kane: (09:37) the issue is what they are!
martin boyle, Nominet: (09:37) We had a lot of dicussions about this and noted that it is only when there are clear discrepencies (errors) or if there seems to be an outstanding legal threat on ICANN
Paul Kane: (09:38) NO
Paul Kane: (09:38) :-)
Avri Doria: (09:42) Seems a good idea to know
Sharon Flanagan: (09:43) We also understand that ICANN is revising the services agreement to address this gap.
Avri Doria: (09:43) so that means the enitre current IANA staff?
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (09:43) @Tran, does at the time of transition mean in 3 years, or immediately after theEffective Date, the IANA Staff will be seconded?
Avri Doria: (09:43) but are the technical people being spoken of considered part of that entire current taff?
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (09:45) Thanks Tran for the clarification, that secondment will be after the Effective Date.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:45) @ Trang: The current IANA team will be seconded?
Elise Gerich: (09:46) yes, Chuck, the current staff in the IANA department
Avri Doria: (09:46) what i am not clear on is whther the technical people that others were concerned about are included in that staff and not witthin the service.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:46) Thanks Elise.
Sharon Flanagan: (09:46) What's the hesitation to naming the initial group?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:47) They wouldn't need to be named in the agreement.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (09:47) It would not be uncommon to identify the function, AND name the initial persons performing the work. We see that all the time in these kinds of Services Agreements between companies. At least for key functionaries
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:47) Do we need a key personnel clause?
Paul Kane: (09:48) I don't they need to be named - I just would like to hear that the IANA staff are happy with this proposal?
matthew shears: (09:48) it might be important at least at the outset to see the names and roles - confidence buiulding measure
Greg Shatan: (09:48) Naming individuals is quite typical in secondment, transition services, outsourcing and other services agreements.
Donna Austin, RySG: (09:48) I agree with Trang, I don't think we need to know names.
Sharon Flanagan: (09:49) I still don't understand the hesitation to naming them.
Trang Nguyen: (09:49) @Chuck: we do have a key personnel clause in the naming function agreement, similar to the requirement in the current IANA Funcions Contract.
Paul Kane: (09:49) Thanks Elise .....
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:49) Thanks Trang.
Greg Shatan: (09:50) Actual people are being seconded. Not just functions or FTEs.
Donna Austin, RySG: (09:52) I don't kow everyone currently in IANA at the moment, the names would be largely meaningless. The important information is that there will be people in the necessary positions.
martin boyle, Nominet: (09:53) @Donna +1
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (09:57) @Chuck - Could you send the comments throught o Sidley so we can help verify the revisions in the next turn of the Services Agreement?
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (09:57) thx
andrew sullivan: (10:13) It's also true that the Trust has a commitment to do what the community says, not what ICANN wants.
andrew sullivan: (10:13) but I grant that getting that stated correctly in the contracts is important
Trang Nguyen: (10:14) It seems that some of these options would require amendments to the ICANN Bylaws (i.e., expanding the scope of the CSC and IFR).
Donna Austin, RySG: (10:15) I don't think it's possible to expand the scope of the CSC at this point in time. Maybe in 12 months time when the first review is conducted.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:16) If addtional changes to the Bylaws are necessary, when will those need to be finalized?
Donna Austin, RySG: (10:16) Can someone explain to me what the real risk is here. What could ICANN do to compromise the IANA IPR?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:17) Because of ICANN's dual role, I think it is important to define the community role.
Greg Shatan: (10:17) I don't believe these proposals would necessarily expand the scope of either the CSC or IFR.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:18) We should strive to make the new accountability mechanisms work for these concerns, instead of multiplying specific mechanisms... just a thought
Greg Shatan: (10:19) Jorge, what mechanism are you thinking of?
Sharon Flanagan: (10:19) @Trang - The memo outlines where bylaw changes would be required. It would for IFR but should not for CSC (their charter is outside of the bylaws)
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:20) Greg, you are much more in the depths of the debate - but the PTI supervision mechanisms and the empowered community come to my mind, in case ICANN would go rogue
Trang Nguyen: (10:26) @Sharon, the ICANN Bylaws describe the mission of the CSC as monitoring the performance of PTI against the naming function agreement and SOW to ensure satisfactory performance of the IANA naming function. Furthermore, footnote 60 of paragraph 1105 of the CWG proposal says that the CSC is not a legal entity.
Sharon Flanagan: (10:27) We could add ICANN"s role under the Community Agreement to the Naming Function Agreement - then it is within scope of IFR and CSC
Greg Shatan: (10:27) Jorge, I expect the CSC will feed quality control concerns to the CCG. The QC obligations related to the performance of PTI anyway, so this part is a good fit. CSC doesn't really have any supervisory role regarding ICANN (outside of its role in working with PTI).
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:29) if you want to go down to the nitty gritty, there's root-servers.net
Lise Fuhr: (10:29) I got disconnected
Lise Fuhr: (10:29) Greg go ahead
Greg Shatan: (10:29) I've heard no mention of internic. net in these discussions.
Xavier Calvez: (10:29) No, we just lost Lise.
Brenda Brewer: (10:29) Stand by please
Lise Fuhr: (10:30) Calling in again
Lise Fuhr: (10:30) I am on audio again
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (10:30) http://www.internic.net: InterNIC is a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce. It is licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which operates this web site.
Paul Kane: (10:31) ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/named.root
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (10:31) Hints files are nowadays build i in the resolvers ....
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:32) Yup That makes sense to me Greg / Chuck
andrew sullivan: (10:33) It would be way better to use a path that doesn't require bylaws changes, if you ask me
Avri Doria: (10:33) i think that optiion 1 is adequate. i like the idea of in including this in the IFR scope. but can also live with just using the EC mechansims.
Greg Shatan: (10:33) My Alexander Haig moment is over.
Greg Shatan: (10:34) I agree with Avri on the point being discussed here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:35) good SHARON
Greg Shatan: (10:35) Dear ICANN, You sign this Agreement and do what we say. Sincerely, the Names Community.
Greg Shatan: (10:35) Everything else is commentary.
Avri Doria: (10:36) with a smiley face in the signature please
matthew shears: (10:36) perfect!
Greg Shatan: (10:36) :-)
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:36) +1
Paul Kane: (10:36) I am happy with ICANN as signaory but perhaps PTI should be required to be bound to have an off-site escrow and also the release terms in the event of ICANN's termination of IANA function
Donna Austin, RySG: (10:36) I can live with adequate over perfect.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:37) +!
Greg Shatan: (10:37) Running code: the legal version.
matthew shears: (10:37) possibly useful safeguards Paul
andrew sullivan: (10:37) the escrow thing has nothing to do with the IPR
Greg Shatan: (10:38) +1 Andrew
andrew sullivan: (10:38) there's no IPR in IANA operations at all
Sharon Flanagan: (10:38) The IP is with the IETF Trust
andrew sullivan: (10:39) ICANN asserts as part of the transition that the registries are in the public domain
Paul Kane: (10:39) Agree
Sharon Flanagan: (10:40) Many assets will need to be transferred in the case of a change. I would not try to identify selectively at this point.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (10:40) @Paul -- I think your concern is for transition, but really unrelated to the trademarks and domain names that are being licensed from the IETF Trust.
Paul Kane: (10:41) Agree - nothign to do with trademark - but I it's important to address at some time
Paul Kane: (10:41) :-)
Greg Shatan: (10:43) IPR can also include trade secrets, know-how, confidential information, customer lists, databases, etc. That is the IPR that remains at IANA/PTI.
Donna Austin, RySG: (10:47) Is the CCG only operational with regard to the IPR?
Paul Kane: (10:48) Thanks all - sorry must go.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:48) BYE Paul
Donna Austin, RySG: (10:49) thanks Josh
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (10:49) @Lise, correct
Donna Austin, RySG: (10:49) but to Greg's point, we need to define the names community in order to select represenatives, is that correct?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:50) straw.entity
Sharon Flanagan: (10:50) Also, as a process point, if an SO/AC is going to be asked to provide representatives to the CCG or have a consultation role, they need to agree to do this.
Greg Shatan: (10:51) The Coalition of the Willing.
Sabine Meyer: (10:52) Greg, did you watch a documentary last night? :)
Greg Shatan: (10:52) I just have a rich and vivid imagination.
Sabine Meyer: (10:53) Thank you for sharing it with us :D
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:53) :-)
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (10:55) thanks and bye!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:55) thanks everyone... good progression on time criticle matters ...talk again soon then ... Bye for now...
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:56) Thanks all.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (10:56) thank you everyone
matthew shears: (10:56) thanks
Maarten Simon, ccNSO: (10:56) thanks, bye
Elise Lindeberg, GAC: (10:56) bye :)
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (10:56) bye all
andrew sullivan: (10:56) bye all
Sabine Meyer: (10:56) good bye everyone
Avri Doria: (10:56) bye, thanks
Greg Shatan: (10:56) Bye, all!
Lise Fuhr: (10:56) Goodbye all
martin boyle, Nominet: (10:57) bye all