Sub-Group Members: Guru Acharya; Wanawit Ahkuputra; Paradorn Athichitsakul; Wale Bakare; Graeme Bunton; Fatima Cambronero; Alissa Cooper; Phil Corwin; Olivier Crepin-Leblond; Eduardo Diaz; Stephanie Duchesneau; Amr Elsadr; Lars-Erik Forsberg; Alan Greenberg; Robert Guerra; Erick Iriarte; Paul Kane; Yasuichi Kitamura; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana; Brenden Kuerbis; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Elise Lindeberg; Camino Manjon-Sierra; Vika Mpisane; Milton Mueller; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Seun Ojedeji; Plamena Popova; Greg Shatan; Peter Van Roste;
Staff: Grace Abuhamad, Bart Boswinkel; Berry Cobb; Marika Konings; Bernard Turcotte
Apologies: Avri Doria; Leon Sanchez; Martin Boyle; Joy Liddicoat; Allan MacGillivray; Matthew Shears
**Please let Grace know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Coordination Team for RFP3 subgroup
Timeline & deliverables
Review of CWG RFP 2a Document
Action item: All encouraged to review 2A document and think about how any of these process steps may change
Variables Document
Next steps:
The transcript is available here: RFP_Meeting1_6Nov.doc
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4p4tywz9bw/
The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/4xhxxs9qmvqicfos4dbm.mp3
IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal - 3 Nov 14.docx
Marika Konings:Welcome to the CWG-RFP3 meeting of 6 November 2014
Camino Manjon:Good afternoon everyone
Greg Shatan:Good morning, afternoon aned evening, all
Robert Guerra:Grace - is the conference code still CWG IANA ?
Robert Guerra:i tried dialing in - and they said such a code wasn't active... are we not using it for this sub-group?
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):code is rfp3
Robert Guerra:ah.ok
Graeme Bunton:Omnious horror movie sound effects?
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello
Erick Iriarte:good morning :) here in costa rica the day is great :)
Lars Erik Forsberg:Hi everyone
Fatima Cambronero:hello everyone
Wale Bakare:Hi everyone
Seun Ojedeji:Hi Wale
Wale Bakare:Hi Seun, nice seeing you here
Berry Cobb:In regards to the timeline we have on our current Project Plan (starting 4 Nov) until 24 Nov to produce the RFP3 Draft. With this deadline, that allows the greater CWG 1 calendar week to pull in all RFP drafts into a single document and conduct edits from there.
Berry Cobb:That said, that does not mean contributions to RFP3 will cease on 24 Nov, just a deadline date to allow the larger group to edit the full RFP.
Seun Ojedeji:Meanwhile i think there may be need to update the timeline as the subgroup 4 has a delivery of Nov 10th
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:Will we be breaking up into groups in Frankfurt?
Berry Cobb:@Suen, the latest PP has the 24th as a due date for RFP4 as well.
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Correct for Allan
Berry Cobb:We will upload the latest project plan to the wiki.
Seun Ojedeji:okay will check-out the update then @Berry
Seun Ojedeji:thanks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:best add me to the CC group as well
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:having served in the FOI WG for hears :-)
Berry Cobb:The latest project plan for CWG-Stewardship is here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359886/CWG-IANA%20Stewardship-Naming%20Related%20Functions_20141102.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1415283562924&api=v2
Erick Iriarte:I would like to help in sub-group ccTLD
Lars Erik Forsberg:Difficult for GAC members to pic one of the groups?
Milton:I agree with Greg about this
Wale Bakare:I also think these sub-groups should have timeline prior to the F2F meeting in Frankfurt
Brenden Kuerbis:@MM The risk of framenting part?
Milton:yes
Milton:Going off into silos.
Berry Cobb:Please, I remind speakers to first announce their name before making their statements for transcript purposes. Thank you.
Milton:ccTLDs and gTLDs use the same IANA. While they have different sources of policy, they use the same functions
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:Also agree with Greg. If we isolate propsals for the different types of TLDs, it'll probably be because we're overcomplicating things, and treading dangerously close to policy issues.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@berry can you also email links put in chat or send a copy of the full chat not all OSs allow live links from AC. rooms (e.g. my Android one)
Berry Cobb:@CLO - copy that. Will do.
Erick Iriarte:so now our chair (greg) will have the important role to mix to perspective and realities related to TLDs
Erick Iriarte:o now our chair (greg) will have the important role to mix two perspective and realities related to TLDs
Seun Ojedeji:But that was the same thing that was done for rfp1 and 2 so cc and gtld should work together to provide their content
Seun Ojedeji:I really don't see how having sub-sub-group will make things faster
Seun Ojedeji:Thank you for that question!
Erick Iriarte:in some point ccTLDs and gTLDs are so different (in special related with local policies and local regulation). In the case gTLDs is only one legislation (US - contracts), in case of ccTLDs you have almost one legislation by country (in some cases have more regulations)
Milton:echoes!
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Noise in the line
Brenden Kuerbis:But that is all policy related
Brenden Kuerbis:@Erick
Seun Ojedeji:@Eric Yes they are and those differences where also raised on rfp1 and 2 respectively without necessarily creating sub-sub-group
Brenden Kuerbis:Once the policy is settled, the inputs to IANA are very similar
Robert Guerra:might I suggest that sub-sub groups get tasks to develop specific languate to gTLD/cTLD in parallel to this sub-group. It's just putting tgogether experts to help make sure text icomes from that community. I
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:yes
Marika Konings:What if the sub-groups would conduct their work on the main RFP3 list so that everyone has visilibity to the conversation and can provide input as needed?
Robert Guerra:let's not get stuck on process of the sub-sub groups, instead focus on the main topics at hand and develop language which we need
Erick Iriarte:@milton : we always listen you :)
Wale Bakare:Considering the criticality of RFP3 proposal, i think, it's imperative to capture all important elements for the full proposal. Thereby, having the ccTLD and gTLD not bad. But the challenge is getting a well riched documents ready prior to the F2F
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):#Greg: Thanks
Brenden Kuerbis:We just need to ensure that IANA implments according to the policy set by ccTLDs, gTLDs
Milton:+1 Brenden
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Greg
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Are we going to create more mailing lists to do this work?
Seun Ojedeji:@Eduardo no all discussion will happen on rfp3
Wale Bakare:@Eduardo, am not really sure about that
Brenden Kuerbis:Agree with Stephanie's comment
Wale Bakare:as there's cwg-rfp3 mailing list already
Erick Iriarte:...
Erick Iriarte:i have troubles with my mic
Erick Iriarte:sorry
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Seun: that will complicate things. Imagine the traffic flow: cctld subgrou communicating with its memeber, gtld sugroup to theirs and the rest ALL in one place. How do you know what is what?
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:2B has not been published yet
Seun Ojedeji:@Eduardo if we were able to pull that off for the 1 and 2a,b then rfp 3 will be easier to handle
Seun Ojedeji:its better cctld and gtld experienced folks put in their part in one document so we see how it all fits hollistically
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Seun: I think the issues in this group are more complex. This is the PROPOSAL
Wale Bakare:@seun, that would unnecessary create a an overhead
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:GAC Principles assume IANA Operator is in ICANN -
Milton:Bernard: that's a problem
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:If there are any changes required to the GNSO PDP, this may involve accountability issues that should be addressed by the broader ICANN accountability CWG.
Wale Bakare:@Seun, that would unnecessarily create an overhead with time constraint
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed @bernie
Seun Ojedeji:@Wale could you explain why you so. Because i think that is even the best way to move faster instead of creating content in isolation and then trying to fit them together
Robert Guerra:Guidebook & PDP process, in as much as they document the process - would have to be updated accordingly
Wale Bakare:+1 Eduardo's suggestion on mailing lists makes sense, i think
Seun Ojedeji:we already have a fragmentation at IANA level communities already(which is for ICG to worry about)...we don't have to put more here
Alan Greenberg:NETmundial Webinar starts in 18 minutes. Are we planning to break for that?
Marika Konings:Please note that you all have scroll control
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Note - the next version of 2A will have an additional item for IDN ccTLD Fasty Track which was omitted in the intial version
Marika Konings:Page 6 in Adobe Connect
Wale Bakare:@Seun, you have point though, but getting the right balance round the workloads important at this stage. The ccTLD and gTLD sub-groups could work amongst themselves an at interval have others' contributions
Robert Guerra:in P7/ step 2-6 no doubt where we need to focus our discussions
Milton:did you like the first poiont about separating G and CC parts of 2A?
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to @Robert
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:This will be covered in 2B
Seun Ojedeji:and we need to just determine if 2-7 can be forgotten going forward
Camino Manjon:Agree with MIlton that IRP could be factored in
Milton:Bernard: ok, but doesn't 2A ask about dispute resolution?
Milton:oK, I get it. 2B is oversight and accountability - IRP fits better in there
Milton:Ha! 2B or not 2B
Grace Abuhamad:Nice @Milton!
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Milton, I think the dispute considerations in 2A were for inside the policy dev., process
Milton:Yes, I got it now. makes sense
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:Agree with Robert and Seun. Focus should be more on 2-6, and a discussion on the need for 2-7 to remain should take place.
Milton:strictly speaking IRP cases can come from inside the policy process (in fact, they usually do) but I think it is more of an accountability measure than a DRP for policy
Robert Guerra:Process should be there - question is what entity does it, and processed that allow it to make that decision
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Milton - probably not for cc's
Milton:Could a ccTLD avail itself of the IRP
Milton:?
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Yes on a Board decision
Milton:OK
Seun Ojedeji:@Robert i think that process 2-7 is somewhat a repitition of process 2-6 (in part)
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):bernard - is the reconsideration request also being discussed within 2b?
Milton:I would think Reconsideration would fit more in policy DRP
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Stephanie - described and presented in 2B -yes
Milton:I will have to depart. Don't do anything crazy ;-)
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Milton - I think we need a vote on that...
Milton:consensus!!!!
Seun Ojedeji:Hahah...lol Milton....!!! Thank god you are leaving ;)
Robert Guerra:Believe there should be an oversight body.
Alan Greenberg:Needs to be more than "advisory" in current def'n
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agreed @alan g
Robert Guerra:when oportune, please advise if can make comment on A&B
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and must be a MSG in my view
Seun Ojedeji:It depends on what oversight body is referred to here. So yes i am in favor of oversight so long as its interpretted into a mechanism within ICANN
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Let's add an. CA - Contracting Authority to the list in Box A. to encompass @amr's point
Wale Bakare:I also think the oversight should include not only service level but, i my humble opinion, would suggest Service Delivery and Level Agreement because it centers on direct customers
Seun Ojedeji:I am so much in agreement with the current speaker
Wale Bakare:SDLA - Service Delivery and Level Agreement
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:depends on the definition of what the 'oversight body' is tasked with
Sivasubramanian M:For IANA, we might need a 3 tier system, a) all tehcnical (routine) functions grouped under Functions or Operations, with an emphasis on greater technical participation or only Technical participation. b) a Management Tier, which is either internal to IANA or housed within ICANN that takes care of most of what is dicussed as "oversight" and c) a higher oversight that needs to be discussed
Sivasubramanian M:b) needs to be multi-stakeholder as with the present ICANN multistakeholder structure
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Greg: I think we may be saying the same thing, but it may be the semantics that are the issue here.
Sivasubramanian M:c) could also be multistakeholder but that would require a modified model with an emphasis on the required experience and expertise for oversight
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:We may want to replace oversight with a different word.
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Amr: MAybe use coordinator (again)
Elise Lindeberg GAC:could we have a oversight mechanism rather than a set function - that could step into function if needed ? just a thought
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Eduardo: I personally like "contracting authority". It seems to me to be the most descriptive term to the function I would like to see. :)
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:An authority that enforces contractual compliance, and decides on renewal and/or dissolving the agreement.
Alan Greenberg:"coordinator" and "contracting authority" are likely to be VERY different functions...
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Alan: I agree.
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Seun: +1, but I would go further by saying specific groups within the ICANN community.
Alan Greenberg:pROBABLY NOT THE TIME FOR DETAILED DESIGN RIGHT NOW.
Alan Greenberg:Oops - sorry for caps
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:Not trying to go into detailed design right now, but the context of the approach may be influenced by what descriptive labels we choose right now. I see way too much oversight and nothing else on this document right now. Thought it'd be good to just put this on the record now.
Brenden Kuerbis:Perhaps Administrative Body would be the most appropriate term. In that it could (depending on the solution we design) administer a contract with an operator to provide the IANA functions.
Brenden Kuerbis:Or it could have some other sort of mechanism with the operator.
Greg Shatan:@Amr: What do you think is missing?
Elise Lindeberg GAC:Alan - I agree !
Camino Manjon:agree with current speaker. Registries may have conflicts with current bottom-up policy and may not be well suited to perform oversight fx.
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Alan: Policy would dictate the terms of the contract, wouldn't it?
Wale Bakare:+1 Elise
Wanawit Ahkuputra GAC:+1Elise
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Greg: It's not really what's missing, but how the division of roles between customers and oversight/administrator/authority is done.
Alan Greenberg:@Amr, don't much care about words. We need to ensure the policy is followed, and that service level commitments are met.
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):+1 Alan
Alan Greenberg:@Stephanie, if "oversight" by Ry/ccTLD is only with respect to service levels, then that has never been said where I saw it.
Alan Greenberg:Have not really thought about it, but I *might* agree to the restriction for only SL.
Seun Ojedeji:I think something like that is existing
Seun Ojedeji:it was shared on Gdocs
Seun Ojedeji:need to look for the url
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Olivier: I will add what type of oversigth
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Technical? Administrative?
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:This has "somewhat" been done: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bycchop8VaMWVlJBalk4VG1CelE&usp=sharing&tid=0Bycchop8VaMWeDFnY3FXckRJbWc
Wale Bakare:@Amr, thanks for the link
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:;-)
Elise Lindeberg GAC:+1 Edvardo Diaz
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:The Google Doc which you point out is helpful, Amr, but clearly this needs to be expanded. Because otherwise I do not know how we are going to make heads or tails of all of the points of view here :-)
Grace Abuhamad:@Seun we are dialing back to you
Seun Ojedeji:Actually there is another one that had 5 scenarios
Seun Ojedeji:i just can't seem to find the url right now
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Olivier: Yes, of course. It also addresses IANA as a whole, and not specifically the oversight body you were asking about. That's why I said "somewhat". :)
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I really like the document that has the list of variables
Wale Bakare:@Eduardo, what about Technical for SLA, while Adminitrative - validation/verification/policy?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:funding? It's all FREE! :-)
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:If we choose no new body then we're pretty much finished with our task.
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):At what point in our discussion do we decide where IANA is going to reside? I think it should be soon since I am under the impression that it will drive the rest of the proposal
Wale Bakare:@Seun, it's same link shared 2 days ago for variables , compositions and pros and cons
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Eduardo - are you sure? We don't even know if the function will be separated or not
Fatima Cambronero:+1 @Eduardo
Alan Greenberg:Monday mid-day for me.
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:@Eduardo: Similar to a principle of IANA being separable from ICANN, have you considered the residence being movable? :)
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):happy to work on documentation as well - sorry for being mum at the start of the call
Alan Greenberg:I think it is an old hand that has not yet been recognized.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:that was a new hand, gre!
Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Bye - Adios
Seun Ojedeji:Thanks
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG):thanks greg, thanks alL!
Wale Bakare:Thanks, bye
Fatima Cambronero:thanks all. Bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye thanks all thanks Greg
Amr Elsadr - NCSG/GNSO:Thank all. Bye.
Greg Shatan:Thank you all. Bye!
Camino Manjon:bye!
Greg Shatan:Olivier -- so sorry I did not see your note!
Seun Ojedeji:bye