RFP3 continued (10:00 – 12:45 local time)

---

Notes & Action Items

Chair to take a stab at combining Functional approach and strawman. Shared in a table IAAN Transition Flow Chart 20 November 2014

IANA Customer Standing Committee, customers, periodic operational review, transactional review. Committee is always there.

Periodic review team escalation path from IANA Customer Standing committee,  

• Periodic review of its own, Multistakeholder. Predefined in terms which constituency have a seat at the table, individual members, Seat are defined by whom appoints members. 

Independent Standing Policy review Committee, Appeal on decisions under policy. Policy implementation appels mechanism.

IANA Contracting Entity Is this entity that decides which components are in the contract? Vehicle to be used as counter 

 

Independent Standing Policy review Committee – Independent from whom?

•  Short form: some kind of arbitration
•  Adjudicating whether decision under policy is in accordance in policy. 
• Change Independent Standing Policy review Committee -> decisions is conformance with agreed policy
• When IANA treats request, appeal should focus 
• policy for IANA transactions.

Refer to  policy list in current IANA Functions contract . 

Truly independent, and reference to principles document. Dispute 

Reference to ICC and its arbitration rules.

Link to CWG accountability

 

Example for appeals

• gTLD string not in conformity with policy
• No Board decision
• Refusal to delegate?

 

• Why truly independent policy decision appeals panel
• Multistakeholder model as arbitrator
• Suggestion to rename to Independent Appeals Panel for Policy Implementation Decisions
• Who can appeal? 
• See Strawman
• Affected or impacted parties in brackets, concepts needs to be refined. 
• Subject to further revision
• Threshold for harm needs to be defined.
• Issue some could be harmed by the policy itself, 

 ccTLD Survey: binding appeals 49 % in favour. At the same time vast majority of ccTLD maangers consider they are ultimate responsible for the ccTLd and not ICANN.

 Will panel make a recommendation or decision?

Expectation understanding now: iti is binding

 

IANA Contracting Entity

• Composition not discussed, could be same entity as periodic review review. Committee needs to have.
• Building bridges with protocol and addressing communities, who will need to be involved.
• No presumption that another entity needs to be established.
• Currently only two groups/teams.
• General bodies/ groups characteristics how perform functions.

 

Continuation of session on Table ( 10.55-12.45 UTC)

Interrelationship between Bodies 

• cross reference with strawman, may have to be done on line.
• Not covered Authorization role in structure
• Is it addressed? will it be addressed?
• Various entities or groups are set. Common understanding 
• Interrelation between the periodic review team and contracting entity.
• In order to stay minimalists the periodic review team needs to have substance.
• In order to stay minimalistic periodic review team, needs to act as kind of supervisor.
• Periodic review needs to be multi-stakeholder
• Contract review is bound by Function group 2.
• Yesterdays outcome suggest there is no longer an Authorization role.
• IANA executes, and in case necessary, appeal mechanism comes in play..
• Contracting entity, driven by periodic review.
• As far as substance of contact, parts will be dealt with by Accountability discussion. 

• As far periodic review, some only come to table only for contracting review activities. 
• The composition of contract review characteristics, may be multi-stakeholder. as well periodic review
• Empty seat could have same names, the persons filling the seat could be different.
• By what teams are supposed, you get interested people.
• The periodic review team, may use others
• Core is open participatory entities which are transparent.
• Any review team, actively solicits views from outside the team.
• Erasing of Authorization step, will put more pressure on IANA. Removing of Authorization needs to be revisited in context of RFP 4.
• Working assumption is Authorization is in square brackets, meaning it will need to be revisited.
• Is Authorization component 
• Significant difference between gTLD and ccTLD
• Reference to ccTLD survey results.
• in ccTLD authorization is an difficult task.
• Option to fill seats on Periodic review team and contracting entity and its composition
• Alternative could be open participation.
• Reaction on closed or open group
• If groups attract people with different skill-sets, agenda, and interests.
• Depending on aspect dealt with by periodic review team.
• Periodic review team could be split in line with aspect it deals with for example, along lines of operational lines or preparing contracting.
• Different skills sets defined by required output  of periodic review team.
• Does it need to be split? 
• Build cases, to check developed structure
•  This is part of RFP 4 , i.e flows into stress testing.
• Authorization function: performed by USG, hence not questioned.
•  Alternative option, analysis of reports produced by IANA. 
•  Example IANA reports need to include GAC advise was followed. GAC is revisiting interpretation of some of its advices 

 Does it bleed into Accountability? 

Concerns:

Putting back a gate-keeper.

Where did the system go wrong? In case of example, the wrong was at the ICANN side and not the IANA side.  The issue needs to be addressed at level where problem lies.

• Independent review is there for corner cases as well under proposed structure.
•  Work on Authorization may be closely linked with work on accountability. Hence close eye on what is happening in Accountability group. 
•  Perception some talks are already performed  in ICANN.
•  New committee Function 1 ( IANA Customer standing committee), for customers (all ccTLD and gTLDs). and liaisons (from multistakeholder) 

Periodic review team, multistakeholder.

IANA customer committee., may have a coordination tasks, to invoke escalation.

Does this group needs to review the Accountability work. What is process moving forward? in particular around accountability

• Co-chairs need to liaise with Accountability track, to ensure work of this group is not disrupted. 

 After escalation Periodic review team may act. Contracting entity could defer part of its mandate to periodic review to ensure issues are followed up

• Relationship with Accountability process unclear.
•  Perception two tracks are not linked
•  Perception that  accountability needs to be linked with transition.
•  Accountability needs to be fed into to proposal, whilst others believe it will only happen indirectly, Accountability CWG reports to Board.
•  Leave placeholders are need dot be left in place. 

Transcript

The transcript is available here: MeetingF2F_Session2_Nov20.doc

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7kn16384ca/

The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/ckoir73bi3biaspjovr4.mp3

Documents Presented

IANA Transition Flow Chart - 20 November 2014.pdf

Flowchart updated.pdf

Chat Transcript

Grace Abuhamad:(Cleared Chat in advance of session)

  Grace Abuhamad:10:00 – 12:00: RFP3 (continued)  -- CURRENT

  Grace Abuhamad:Session to start soon

  Grace Abuhamad:Starting in 1min

  Avri Doria:policy exceptions review

  Desiree Miloshevic:Does it have to be a standing one

  Desiree Miloshevic:or to be convened when something breaks?

  Robert Guerra:Good way to summarize the discussion on type of activities that have been mentioned

  Amr Elsadr:@Desiree: Agree. Don't understand why it needs to be a standing committee.

  Avri Doria:It should be  exception driven

  Avri Doria:seats are defined by not who occupies them?

  Avri Doria:... but not who ...

  Desiree Miloshevic:perhaps 5 cctLD region, GNSO, etc

  Allan MacGillivray:I t hink the term is 'ex officio'

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:similar to the SCI in the GNSO -  but on a higher level?

  Amr Elsadr:@Wolf: The members of the SCI representing thier groups are individually identified, so I guess not exactly the same, right?

  Avri Doria:Amr, the seats in the SCi are defined.  who fills them is up to the various entities

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:@Amr: yes, but they are nominated by the groups which are preassigned

  Grace Abuhamad:If any of you would like Microphone access, please let me know

  Amr Elsadr:@Avri @Wolf: Yes..., but the individual reps of the community don't come together on an ad-hoc basis as is being suggested here is what I meant.

  Amr Elsadr:The respective groups identify them, and they remain members of the committee until the groups change them.

  Robert Guerra:Like Allan's formulation of the Appeals panel

  Avri Doria:implementation appeal, not policy appeal

  Amr Elsadr:@Avri: +1.

  matthew shears:Isn't it just "Root Zone Change Appeals Panel"?

  Robert Guerra:+1 to Matthew's suggestion

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Could one use "procedure" instead of "policy"?

  matthew shears:what are we trying to appeal exactly?

  matthew shears:the implementaiton of a proposed change by IANA, correct?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Assessing whether IANA's action was consistent with agreed "policy". I thought at that stage, it's IANA "procedures"

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Once imlplemented, I thought a "policy" becomes a "procedure"

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Bart--is this an appeal of a Board decision or an IANA decision?

  Donna Austin, RySG:Given that the Board will make the decision to approve delegation or not.

  Allan MacGillivray:@Donna - I  think that at least from a ccTLD perspective, it would be better if delegations were decided by IANA staff rather than the ICANN board.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Allan--but delegations are currently decided by the Board

  matthew shears:Good question Donna and what is the role in this as a whole?

  Donna Austin, RySG:not sure Matthew

  Allan MacGillivray:@Donna - I know, but this is where the ccTLD community feels problems have arisen.  There is no need for the Board to make these decsions, at least for ccTLDs.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Allan--I understand, but trying to keep this discussion to what we are dealing with now.

  matthew shears:there may not be a role for the ICANN Board in this construct

  Donna Austin, RySG:Is there a cost associated with using the ICC?

  Donna Austin, RySG:The ICC hasn't had glowing reports coming out of the new gTLD process.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Always I think

  Allan MacGillivray:@Donna - I think that the ICC refers to a set of rules, the procees to be followed, not necessarily the panelists themselves. But on the larger questions of costs, these would need to be borne by the parties process.  I think this is referenced in the strawmen.

  Amr Elsadr:Wouldn't any problems concerned with a lack of proper implementation of gTLD policy be handled within ICANN? In what circumstances would a need arise to utilize this mechanism for gTLDs?

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Amr--as the appeal as I understand it relates primarily to delegation/redelegation decisions made by IANA, I don't see a strong likelihood that this appeal mechanism would be used by a gTLD operatior, particularly given the gTLD Registry Oeperator signs  a contract with ICANN prior  to delegation.

  Amr Elsadr:@Donna: Yes..., that's the way I see it. Thanks.

  Amr Elsadr:I'm also thinking about policies concerning WHOIS, though, and implementation of those policies could involve something like an implementation review team within ICANN avoiding the need for the use of this type of idependent panel.

  Avri Doria:I am off to the airport now, dont know if i will be able to join from the airport.  glad i could particpate in a few hours of this.  sorry to be missing RFP4 which I am hoping to contribute to. good luck to you all, and please keep the word minimalist upmost in the planning.

  Jonathan Robinson:Thanks Avri

  Amr Elsadr:Safe travels Avri.

  Robert Guerra:had also mentioned - that other entities would recommend to it what the selection criteria would be

  Robert Guerra:So there's input on requirements, and selection criteria -if an rfp is  issued

  Grace Abuhamad:*** 15 min break *** will resume for another 30min

  Grace Abuhamad:begin in 1 min

  Camino Manjon:re: Arbitration> for cc's that do not have contracts with ICANN, perhaps they should not be directly bound to arbitration but have the chance to go back to national jurisdictions and courts first. Arbitration would hence be voluntary. Would this work btter for  ccTLD colleagues?

  Allan MacGillivray:@Camino - it goes without saying that a ccTLD may have other avenues to addess problems, and policy decision appeal would not necessarily represent its first step.

  Desiree Miloshevic:@Camino - sounds right

  Camino Manjon:ok, because the it goes without saying does not convince me :) perhaps we have to make it clearer in the working of this draft document

  Camino Manjon:adding an exception for ccTLDs

  Camino Manjon:i meant "wording", sorry

  Allan MacGillivray:@Camino - Are you are saying that a ccTLD must exhaust ' all other avenues of redress' before going to the policy decision appeal panel?  If so, that might be very difficult to define as some of these redress mechanims may be at th local level e.g. vary by every country.

  Alan Greenberg:We are getting FAR too involved with details.

  Camino Manjon:@allan. I did not mean to convey that cc's have to exhaust the natioanal avenues before, but that they should not be forced (if they do not have a contract) to go to arbitration, but to resort to national structures first. If they wish to do so, of course.

  Camino Manjon:@allan and I agree with you on the compliated and diverse redress mechanisms at local level

  matthew shears:contrating and performance committees

  Seun Ojedeji:I think its just does not require a new commitee for that since respective customers are already doing it

  Seun Ojedeji:edit: I think it just does not require a new commitee for that since respective customers are already doing it themselves. Are you saying individual customers will report to this committe when they find an issue/concern?

  Seun Ojedeji:I think what is important is a mechanism that allows IANA customers forward any redlight to the IANA periodic review team

  Donna Austin, RySG:Seun, I see the standing committee as a formalisation of  a process that is currently undertaken by some. it is necessary to formalise in order to understand compliane (for want of a better word) of IANA with the SLAs that I anticipate to be estalished in the contract.

  Allan MacGillivray:@Donna - well said.  Its would formalize what is already ongoing on an ad hoc basis.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Donna that makes a lot sense...but again what i think is missing is the connect between the customer and the  standing commitee....thanks

  Desiree Miloshevic:@Malcolm : should CWG have a liaison with CWG Accountability?

  matthew shears:+ 1 to placeholders for accountablilty

  Marika Konings:@Desiree - a mechnism for liaison is already foreseen in the accountability charter

  Marika Konings:liaising I should say

  Desiree Miloshevic:@Marika - thanks for clarifying

  Seun Ojedeji:I presume the customers referred to here are quite a large number and when a customer observe an issue, where/who does it report to. Unless this is basically saying the only red-light that will be recognised is that from the standing commitee

  Seun Ojedeji:a minimal aspect of accountability as it affects IANA definitely has to come in