IANA CWG Meeting #17 (11 January 17:00 - 19:00 UTC)

---

Proposed Agenda: 

 

Notes #4

1. Roll Call

Will be taken from Adobe Connect attendance

On phone only: none

 

2. Welcome - objective of call #4

Review accountability issues and linkage with CCWG

 

3. Review Survey 2 - Accountability

Accountability - Green items (convergence)

• Ideally, the CWG would have begun its work following the adoption of recommendations by the CCWG-Accountability (question 3)
• Ideally, the CCWG-Accountability would have begun its work before or at the same time as the CWG-IANA, so that the groups could work in parallel (question 4)
• ICANN should formally link the CWG and CCWG processes to ensure tha tthe work moving forward takes into account equities from both processes so that in the end the community, ICANN and NTIA have two well informed and robust plans to ensure the Internet's continued growth and evolution. (question 6)
• Enhanced accountability (regardless of who the IANA Functions Operator is) must be in place prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition (question 7)
• Following the publication of the CCWG's draft recommendations, an assessment should be conducted by the CWG to determine whether the outcome of the Accountability Process provides a satisfactory appeals mechanism (question 9)
• A placeholder should be included in the CWG-IANA proposal that is submitted to the ICG to allow for further evaluation and work as needed after the CCWG track 1 recommendations are finalized (question 10)

4. Operational accountability

NTIA transition comes with oversight of operations and oversight of ICANN's broader accountability and governance. What is work of this group and what is linked to the work of the CCWG. CWG must provide accountability mechanisms for operational aspects (ensuring continuous improvements / SLAs, rebidding if operational agreements are not met). Operational accountability to be supervised by the CSC and MRT. But also factor in how CSC and MRT are accountable themselves. Solve issues at the 'lowest' level possible (principle of subsidiarity) - See also notes from yesterday's meetings regarding CSC and MRT. Consider reviewing SAC69 for applicable principles. Possible accountability steps (as suggested by Bertrand): 1) transparency, 2) direct request to the IANA operator by the entity conserned, 3) complaint to the CSC; 4) appeals; 5) annual review by (CSC or MRT). 

 

5. Broader accountability / Linkage with CCWG-Accountability

• It is still possible for CWG to provide input to the scope of the CCWG
• What, if any, components of CWG proposal are conditional on the CCWG's work - needs to be communicated to the CCWG

Review CCWG-Accountability High Level Statements / Conditionality components

• Response to request from CWG identifying three specific items and requesting feedback and input for the intensive working weekend. CCWG responded that it is not in a position yet to provide any work results yet and provided some high level statements. Consider what needs to be communicated back to the CCWG.
• How can CWG help steer the work of the CCWG?
• What conditions of CWG proposal may be conditional on the outcome of the CCWG and what is the feedback loop? Consider giving them specific items to address, for example, the ability for a registry operator to appeal a delegation decision (which happens before it gets to IANA in the case of gTLDs). Consider pulling out items from this weekend's work to build a list of items to be provided to the CCWG. What is the dividing line between the accountabilty issues that need to be dealt with by CWG and what issues have to be dealt with by the CCWG before a transition can occur. List could be divided into issues related to internal and external option. Consider also whether general statements should be communicated to CCWG - in cases where it is not clear whether an issue should be dealt with in ws 1 or 2, put it in ws 1 to be on the same safe; consider creating a ws 3, needs to be a guarantee that a recommendation needs to be implemented, but does not need to be finalised by date of transition. Possible poll questions: should the CWG recommend that the CCWG exercise caution when placing items in WS1 and WS2, and in case of doubt err on the side of caution and put in WS1. The CWG recommends that the CCWG consider a sub-workstream to ws 1 that would inlude issues that need to have implementation guaranteed before the transition but that can be implemented after the transition (this may also be relevant for RFP4).

Action item: Alan Greenberg to develop first draft of list of possible items for CCWG consideration (with idea to finalize list during next meeting on Thursday) 

 

6. Wrap up / Moving forward

• Chairs Statement following the weekend meeting communication critical points as well as links with CCWG, timeline
• Timeline - initial objective was to have sufficient input coming out of this meeting to prepare a final proposal during next week. This timing needs to be reviewed - what remains a realistic timeframe considering where the CWG is in its process. Revised timeline needs to be conditional on obtaining legal advice, achieving community support for proposal in the event there is no further public comment forum, obtaining approval from SO/ACs in timeline set (consider asking chartering organizations how much time they need). Need to identify dependencies. Chairs will need to have a dialogue with ICG on these possible changes to the timeline as it also affects their timeline .
• Legal advice - important component both for internal as well external to ICANN solution, will also have an impact on timeline. Immediate priority.
• Singapore meeting - need to be able to show where progress has been made and what areas are still open.

7. Confirm next meeting

• Thursday 15 January at 14.00 UTC. Other meetings to be confirmed shortly after this meeting.

Transcript

The transcript will be posted soon. 

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4t188p38n7/

The audio recording is available here:  https://icann.box.com/shared/static/w23gd6kzyhhxan07gs3p.mp3

 

Documents Presented

 

Chat Transcript

Marika Konings:Welcome to meeting #4 of the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG Intensive Work Weekend on 11 January 2015

  Grace Abuhamad:Connecting audio-- Then I will add mics for all

  Robert Guerra:hi all

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):hi again

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hi all

  Fatima Cambronero:hello everyone

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:hi

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:working on audio

  Chuck Gomes:Those of us in D.C. are waiting for an operator.

  Seun Ojedeji:awaiting dial-out

  Staffan Jonson:Hi all

  Marika Konings:@Seun, you should get connected shortly.

  Mary Uduma:Hello Everyone

  Matthew Shears:seem to be unable to connect with PC audio - only gives dial in option

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Hi all

  Marika Konings:We are connecting the audio to the AC now

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:please mute your mikes

  Staffan Jonson:Someone playing Doodle Jump?

  Staffan Jonson:By the soud

  Staffan Jonson:sound

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:what is this?

  Greg Shatan:Good afternoon, good evening and good night, all.

  Marika Konings:Please mute your microphones when not speaking

  Grace Abuhamad:Seun, we dialed  you. Will try again now

  Greg Shatan:Staffan -- very good!

  Staffan Jonson::-)

  Mary Uduma:I am sorry for my inability to attend the 3rd meeting due to earler engagements.

  Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:Hi Steve

  Mary Uduma:That you Marika for the meeeting notes circulted.  I got the update

  Robin Gross:Hello

  Mary Uduma:Thank*

  Matthew Shears:+ 1 Greg - we should asume it is WS 1

  Robin Gross:agreed

  Matthew Shears:Q 9 and 10 point to the need to have the time and ability to review the Accountbaility recomendaitons as a whole and to see how our proposal accounts for / accomodates them

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Matthew: agreed

  Robin Gross:does this relate to oversight of enforcement of the recommendations?

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Gret: in my mind this review is a 'must' not a should.

  Matthew Shears:audio cutting in and out

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:audio OK for me

  Stephanie Perrin:cutting in and out  here

  Alan Greenberg:Is the cutting in and out on the phone bridge or adobe?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:must be the AC  

  Alan Greenberg:Phone bridge is working for me.

  Steve Crocker:What keeps the rebidding decision being used as leverage on ICANN unrelated to IANA?

  Seun Ojedeji:i should note that i am also getting the cutting in and out...which is not helping me follow the statement flow

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Steve: one the requirements recommended by the RySG is that rebidding can only occur as a result of poor IANA performance

  Stephanie Perrin:Surely this question of the survival of the conditions is one of the reasons to have an organization constituted in such a way as to have those conditions ppart of their charter/incorporation.  

  Matthew Shears:Great question - do we have issues with NTIA's criteria longer term?  They probably should be considered for the long term

  Steve Crocker:In extremis, suppose the decision process goes outside of its charter?  What brings the process back into line?  This is one example of the slippery slope of creating new structures.  Each new structure requires dealing with its governance.

  Alan Greenberg:Acct of CSC, MRT in the ContractCo model is equivalent to acct of ICANN in the internal model

  Matthew Shears:+1 Greg

  Paul Kane:You raise a good point Steve, I just wish we could get back to the Frankfurt simplied approach - what is now being discussed is far too complicated and IMHO out of scope for a simple IANA technical function

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Greg: i don't agree with the working group analogy.

  Seun Ojedeji:I am not sure i agree with Greg because i don't see the distinction there. It seem Greg is implying that there is more/less accountability on CSC/MRT depending on wether its contract co/internal...? i think the charter of the CSC/MRT is what is most important source of their accountability

  Matthew Shears:Steve seems to be referring to the notion in Q 1 related to a supervisory Board that we really haven't talked about yet

  Seun Ojedeji:@Matthew actually i don't know how that can be possible (i mean supervisory board) what does that mean?

  Matthew Shears:operational accountability is for CSC/MRT I would have thought

  Alan Greenberg:So they are only accountable to themselves??

  Greg Shatan:Seun, I am not thinking about the Contract Co issue, just that creating accountability for the MRT and CSC, as limited organizations created by the stakeholders is easier than enhancing ICANN acccountability.

  Greg Shatan:@Alan, no they are accountable to the organizations they represent and the MS community.

  Steve Crocker:Greg wrote: no they are accountable to the organizations they represent and the MS community..  And I ask, as politely as possible, isn't ICANN in exactly the same position?

  Greg Shatan:Alan, we may be muddling conversations on ICANN's accountability for operational performance and CSC/MRT accountability for their own performance.

  Greg Shatan:Steve, on one level, yes.  However, if ICANN were already accountabile to the MS organizations and community to the satisfaction of all, there would be no CCWG-Accountability.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:Hell YES @ Chuck

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@chuck, yes, that was my secondpoint. I may not have been clear

  Greg Shatan:Steve, also, changing/enhancing accountability for an existing, complex, multifunctional organization like ICANN is a much more complex task than creating accountability mechanisms for a newly-formed, limited-purpose entity, IMHO.

  Alan Greenberg:@Greg, I can't spek for you, but I am talking about acct of their own performance in both cases.

  Robin Gross:I don't think anything thinks the same pressures and forces in the community won't exist in a new group.  But it may be more about creating checks and balances

  Steve Crocker:It's not binary.  ICANN already has a lot accuntability mechanisms and processes.  Evidentally, some people think more (or different) are required

  Stephanie Perrin:requirement to exhaust administrative remedies prior to appeal

  Robert Guerra:The Principle of Subsidiarity came up yesterday - matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest level possible

  Greg Shatan:The evidence would point to that, yes..

  Alan Greenberg:The issues can be viewed differently because we have a long history with ICANN and know some of its (perceived) problems. We have no such track record with the new intities.

  Robert Guerra:SSAC Advisory on Maintaining the Security andStability of the IANA Functions Through theStewardship Transition - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-069-en.pdf

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:Indeed  agreed @chuck re SAC69

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:1) transparency, 2) direct request to the IANA operator by the entity conserned, 3) complaint to the CSC; 4) appeals; 5) annual review by (CSC or MRT);  

  Alan Greenberg:Yes, SSAC doc is wholly consistent with what all work of CWG is doing (I think)

  Greg Shatan:@Alan, should they then not exist?

  Chuck Gomes:Looks good to me Bertrand.

  Alan Greenberg:@Greg Which "they"?

  Seun Ojedeji:If it were possible i would have asked that a SSAC like setup carry out the role of CSC going forward.... ;-)

  Matthew Shears:+ 1 Bertrand

  Fatima Cambronero:+1 @Bertrand

  Grace Abuhamad:You all have scroll control

  Mary Uduma:+1 Bertrand

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:There will be muc more able to be said from CCWG  after their F2F meeting at the beginning of next week

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1

  Matthew Shears:Yes the FF meeting will be key

  Alan Greenberg:Yes, we will have more then. But to put this in perspective, we were not prepared to publish our final results a week after our Frankfurt meeting.

  Matthew Shears:What is our timeline vis-avis the ICG

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:of course not @Alan

  Lise Fuhr:@Matthew we will discuss this under item 6

  Seun Ojedeji:@Matthew i think that is item 6 on the Agenda

  Matthew Shears:thanks!

  Matthew Shears:Its probably important that w communicate to the the direction of our work - a summary of the work of this weekend would be good guidance

  Matthew Shears:and what other works items are underway

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:Yes indeed  @Chuck send what we have identified  as relevent from this w'end to the CCWG  ASAP

  Matthew Shears:+ 1 Chuck

  Steve Crocker:Chuck just used the phrasing, "delegation decisions that cannot be resolved satisfactorily."  Does this mean that whomever is unhappy with the results of the full set of appeals and reviews should be able to go through yet another path to achieve his goals?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:Good plan  @Alan

  Greg Shatan:I think there would be a lot of commonalities between the 2 lists.  Indeed, I think they would be mostly the same.

  Chuck Gomes:@ Steve:  Yes unless existing mechanisms are changed to be binding upon a decision by an independent arbitrator/adjudicator.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:test

  Alan Greenberg:@Bertrand, strengthening CSC/MRT in an internal sol'n does not help if the Board (and potentially a future out-of-control Board).

  Alan Greenberg:... can over-rule CSC/MRT

  Matthew Shears:I don't think that the model forseees the ICANN Board over-ruling the CSC or MRT - indeed there would be little if any role for the ICANN Board in that construct I would have thought

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:my friends i must leave. see you.

  Chuck Gomes:Am I correct the ccTLD delegations go to the Board and gTLDs do not?

  Alan Greenberg:YEs, but that is the oversight of CSC/MRT

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@chuck, that's what I understand

  Alan Greenberg:Oops - wrong chat.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@matthew, exactly. so the accountability of the Board in the "validation" is - and will be even more - limited, if existent at all.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@alan,

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:I was exploring getting the Board entirely out of the validation workflow in that context

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:so no possibility to overrule the CSC there

  Alan Greenberg:@Bertrand, in the worst case scenario, IANA is staff reporting indirectly to the Board and they have ultimate control. Unless there is some recourse.

  Alan Greenberg:Not being in the normal path does not rule that out.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:staff is reporting to board in terms of overall performance, but I am addressing the validation workflow here in substance.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:in that case, the Board would not have capacity to overrule on substantive decisions. Once again, this is a clerical function.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Wouldn't we want to have a say?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:So we tell them which are the necessary conditions and where implementation could be delayed

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:?

  Matthew Shears:I think the purpose of the Frankfurt meeting is to decide what accountbaility measures go into which streams more fully and to determine priority so this is propitious timing

  Stephanie Perrin:signing out to go to airport, will check transcript, thanks!

  Robin Gross:yes that is right, Matt.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:Bye Stephanie safe travels

  Matthew Shears:It is important that we get this right rather than rushed

  Seun Ojedeji:Sorry just to be clear, what is going to be the use of the content that we have produced since yday? I would have thought looking to see some of the aspect that does not have a green/yellow to determine what alternate is posible and whether it be closed was one of the goals of this weekend.

  Seun Ojedeji:great thanks!

  Robin Gross:legal advice needs to be independent and report directly to this group.

  Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:merci et bon soirée!

  Staffan Jonson:Thank You  all

  Matthew Shears:thanks!

  Donna Austin, RySG:Thanks Jonathan and team

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Bye all

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Thanks all

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:bye all

  Seun Ojedeji:bye

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:thanks all and bye

  Greg Shatan:Robin that's the plan.

  Fatima Cambronero:thanks all, bye

  Greg Shatan:Bye, all.

  Mary Uduma:Bye All

  Robin Gross:thanks, Greg

  Lise Fuhr:Goodbye all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:Thanks everyine,  Bye *for now*