Meeting #4 CWG RFP4 (23 December)

---

Agenda RFP 4 Call -- 23 December at 14:00 UTC

 

1.  Work stream #1: Describing the current situation 

• 1.1 Review of existing ICANN/IANA Technical proposal (available @ http://www.n2a.doc.gov/files/n2a/publica2ons/ icann_volume_i_elecsub_part_1_of_3.pdf )
• 1.2 Discussion of using table of contents from ICANN/IANA Technical proposal as a templete to develop text on how this will change depending on RFP 3 ( Contract Co. <-> all internal, inclusion of IAP etc. ).
• 1.3 Identify relevant terms in the ICANN proposal as well

AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert : 

- I ask for comments on 1.1, 1.2, 1.3  please. Lack of comments, will be interpreted as consensus to proceed using the existing ICANN/IANA Technical proposal as a template.

 

2. Work Stream #2: Describing the transition path

• 2.1 Discussion occurred on how to describe the transition path for the different proposals from RFP 3
• 2.2 Draft text was presented on how to describe change
• 2.3 Transition path for alternate proposals (ie. ALAC)

AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert : 

- 2.1 & 2.2  Is there any comment on ways to best ways describe the transition changes. A draft text was presented. Is there a consensus on using that as a format? Are there elements missing? Should a summary of changes be presented in some way?

- 2.3. Ask for update from ALAC an others who are suggesting/proposing alternate proposals and how (or not) they are including details on transition path from existing contract to new one.

 

3. Work Stream #3: Testing the new proposal

• 3.1 Need to document and discuss risks/treats and issues that might arise to maintain security & stability

AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert : 

- 3.1 Ask that discussion start on the list and continue on the call on Dec 23 on compiling a list of risks/threats. Ask for feedback from everyone on the call tomorrow, especially those with security/stability (ie. ssac) expertise and others.. After call, will ask for staff to summarize the threats mentioned and how proposals might be tested.

 

• 3.2 Need to develop (detailed) list of key periods where testing of proposals is needed. Mention that “transition period” is a critical period  where specific and detailed tests will need to be conducted.

AGENDA ITEM FROM Co-Chair / Robert : 

- 3.2 adding on what mentioned in 3.1, ask that conversation take place on the list and on the call on Dec 23 to develop a list of key periods where proposal should be  tested (& how)

4. Review of timeline

5. Next steps (next call, etc)

Next call is scheduled for Monday Dec 29, 21:00 UTC

 

Notes RFP 4 Sub-WG group 23 December 2014

 

Welcome and Roll call

Previous Call Items

Action from last call: "Jaap to follow up with KIm Davies" --> done. Jaap will post URL:  http://www.iana.org/help/nameserver-requirements

 

Workstreams agreed previous call

Workstream 1

Agenda item for this call Comments on Workstream 1 as proposed: No comments

 

Workstream 2

Agenda item for this call included in slides, comments on workitem 2: No comments.

Update ALAC proposal: question is transition path included?

Porposal submitted in public comment process. Olivier identified several alternative proposals submitted. As to timetable under discussion by ALAC.

MM: Inherent problem ICANN internal solution relies on output CCWG Accountability and are subject to Board vote .

OCB: Timetable ALAC will include schedule of CCWG. 

Accountability work is closely linked to Stewardship work, in particular Workstream 1 of CCWG.

In addition NTIA indicated it will not move forward without clarity around accountability.

 

Coordinator, Meed to capture critical elements of transition paths:

How to proceed: are there common elements in transition paths for all proposals?

No comments

 

Timelines RFP 4

Presented by staff

Current timeline does not include any alternatives.

Question for ALAC members to draft high level time line to be included.

Action OCB: To discuss timeline with his collegues and send result to the mailing list

 

Suggestion to focus tasks that needs to be handled.

CAll for volunteers. 

Action staff: circulate call for volunteers to further elaborate tasks list

Action all: eleoborate tasks list in preparation of next call.

In particular those who are proposing alternate proposals are requested to look at tasks that need to handled.

 

Worskstream 3

Agenda item for today: Identify threats and risks.

SSAC member focused on technical risks. Note this group focuses on process risks. 

Risk: issues may get stuck in bureacracy-> delay and therfor emay become a technical risk

Suggestion to do a systematic risk analysis. 

Interaction between IANA/ICANN, NTIA and Verisign, simple administrative. By creating different layers and levels, communictions may become burdensome 

Build on contingencies already identified in CCWG Accountability Area 4.

Includes general risk management categories are used:

Business threats other specific risks. 

Suggestion to do a compilation of risks

Note: some of the risks are not related to transition. 

Realty factor (possibility) is very low.

Raising policy issues in an administrative function may be overrated.

List of test identified.

Action staff aggregate the threats / risk list

Action Members Categorise elements on that list in:

• Out of scope of this group
• Should be included as risk/stress test item
• Next call 29 December 21.00 UTC

·  Close of the CALL AT 15.03 UTC

 

Action Items

Transcript

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:   https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8gjj1ut4ht/

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer:Brenda Brewer: Welcome to the RFP 4 Call on Tuesday, December 23 at 14:00 UTC

  Robert Guerra:good day all

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:Good day as well.

  Bart Boswinkel:Good day all

  Robert Guerra:I have also just emailed one of the slidedecks for this call to the RFP 4 mailing list.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I will be leaving at the top of the hour for another call...

  Seun Ojedeji:Hello everyone

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):Sorry for my delay.

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):hi, all

  Avri Doria:is it just me, or is his voice very faint?

  Brenda Brewer:I will have his line turned up

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:yes

  Avri Doria:yes

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):yes.

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):too loud

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:http://www.iana.org/help/nameserver-requirements

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):yes

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):good afternoon Milton

  Milton:I would say just wait

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):Sorry how did you know we have consensus on the cwg proposal @Milton?

  Milton:Didn't say we have consensus on existing CWG, I said we definitely do not have support for an internal solution

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):I still disagree with that statement

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@ Milktin the very existence if the ALAC and any other alternate  to Contractinf Co. options  surely mean you can nit be cerain of cinsencus  or evenn near concencus  in that either

  Milton:Track 1 vs. Track 2

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Sorry Milron  typpo on your name

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):accountability can't be achieved in 100%, what we need is to identify what is critical to transition and see how that can be achieved within the time frame

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:*sigh* Milton my appols  for garbled text

  Milton:Cheryl: We know that virtually every stakeholder group other than ALAC (and ICANN) will not accept the internal solution.

  Milton::-) Milron, Milktin

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and as I have said if ALAC holds out  then there will not be full consensus

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):@Milton and who are the we, you see that is the issue, there has been several comments indicating that they are against the cwg proposal which is mainly about contract co

  Milton:There could be rough consensus without ALAC.

  Milton:But certainly there will never be consensus on an internal solution, that is my main point.

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):Milton attempts speak and conclude for all. Its not appropriate to call ALAC proposal internal to ICANN because all we want is a solution that ensures accountability (operating IANA effectively and as determined by policies)

  Milton:I have read all the public comments. I suggest you do that, too. I am not speaking for anyone but myself, I am simply noting that your alternate solution was strongly rejected by most groups that commented on it and many more commentators supported the basic elements of the CWG contracting solution.

  Berry Cobb:Suggestions to the RFP4 list are welcome as well.

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):well maybe you picked the one you want to read...because i have read them as well

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):most of those that support the cwg proposal made lots of reservations

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Seun, Milton may I suggest that this kind of discussion is better suited to the list

  Sivasubramanian M:But the Board has expressed concerns about the formation of a body for awading and reviewing Contracts,  how do we go ahead with tasks such as "Form Contract Co" ?

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):I lost audio

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:ok here

  Grace Abuhamad:should we dial out to you again Seun?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:mind map?

  Sivasubramanian M:3.1  Structural separation could only be for convenience. If there is a real separation between ICANN and IANA funtions, there are bound to be risks of incongruity. For example, ICANN Board approved dot drugstore by Hoptitals Inc. the TLD goes on stream, but IANA Board received an objection from a Government on the basis of stray issues related to dot drugstore and takes it down, while ICANN Board believes that the Registry's records need to be examined for fairness before any rash action

  Grace Abuhamad:you all have scroll control for this document

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):yes Grace

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):Back-in thanks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Moving to ALAC Call now. Bye

  Sivasubramanian M:Q: Internet being a Global eco-system and being such political importance, couldn't IANA ask for a special legal status well within the US framework till such time in the long term for as long as the  Corporation is housed within the US?

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):okay i have to leave now to attend to other matters

  Seun Ojedeji (ALAC):thanks

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Jaap mute?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:thanks

  Philip Corwin:Have to drop off for another call. Good discussion. Happy holidays

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye

  Allan MacGillivray:Best of the season to all.

  Maarten Simon, SIDN:bye

  Matthew Shears:thanks and happy holidays

  Bart Boswinkel:BYE ALL