Attendees: 

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

Documents

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

  • No labels