Attendees: Sharon Flanagan; Holly Gregory; Cam Kerry; Josh Hofheimer; Tennie Tam; Vivek Mohan; Greg Shatan; Maarten Simon; Jonathan Robinson
Apologies: Lise Fuhr
Notes & Action Items
Draft Agenda for Istanbul
- Session with Sidley on day 1 and follow up session on day 2
- Sidley is welcome to join any sessions
- HG: Would be good to hear directly what concerns people (NTIA criteria, etc). Imagining a whiteboard exercise to define "capture" for example
- JR: There is real values in airing views, and best captured through themes as Holly outlined earlier
- If we are able to not produce another version of the document, then that's ideal. We can still provide comments, ask questions, if there are any.
- Sidley will work on something that is summary for presentation. There was a lot of redundancy in the response due to thw way the questions were asked, so we would organize the summary differently.
Goals/Outcomes for Istanbul
- What does CWG hope to acheive coming out of Istanbul?
- JR: at high-level, be in a position to produce key parts of the proposal. We are scheduled to launch a document for public comment shortly after Istanbul
- HG: Would like to see more focus on what pathways the CWG would like to explore. Our goal is to help CWG focus in on two or three.
- JR: Important to provide the group with a map of when and where pathways should be narrowed. Would be useful to build a common understanding.
- JR: It may be possible that the document produced for public comment includes one or more options
- JH: Is it your expectation that Sidley will be charged with producing the initial draft (producing recommendation on model)? Or would you like Sidley to make a recommendation for you to agree/disagree with? Who is going to make initial recommendation?
- JR: we would be receptive to you making a recommendation. The only risks are if you're criticized for bias or lack of information
- HG: we provide information and together come to a solution. Imagine an iterative process here.
Thought exercise on separability concept ("nuclear option")
- JR: Thought exercise: we consider moving IANA away from ICANN (to a 2nd operator) but what if we need to move to a 3rd, 4th, etc. Concern that we are reacting against ICANN and only considering "step 1"
- SF: there would a be lot of documentation needed on the "how" and that's a huge project on its own
- HG: concept was very clear -- what protects at the next operator and the one after that and the one after that
- GS: the meta issue here is to focus on the worst case scenario
Discussion of Integrated Model
- SF: What are the highlights? What makes it better?
- GS: It creates a separable model, not necessarily at the moment, but there for the future
- SF: How is free-standing IANA different from Contract Co. ?
- GS: Contract Co. is a different company
- HG: so, in other words, NTIA could transfer contracting role to ICANN, and ICANN could contract with IANA. How is this different? How is there more direction between ICANN/IANA whether inside or outside?
- JF: one variant got more traction with the group than others
Reminder to use Client Committee mailing list for communication.
As a reminder, there will no call next Thursday since the CWG will be in Istanbul for its F2F meeting.
Action Items
- Action(Grace): Circulate the Istanbul agenda on Client Committee list
- Action(Grace): Send Client Committee transcript and recording of meeting where integrated model was presented. https://community.icann.org/x/OAYnAw
- Action(Brenda): Make sure Sidley receives call details for all F2F meeting slots
- Action(Greg/Jonathan/Lise): read and provide comments on the Sidley memo so that the document can be revised before Istanbul meeting. Deadline: 18:00 UTC on Friday. Noting that Maarten has already completed this action.
- Action(Sidley): work on summary or presentation form of the document for the Istanbul
Transcript
Transcript Client Comm Meeting 19 March.doc
Transcript Client Comm Meeting 19 March.pdf
Recordings
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8a5vcmrt0o/
The MP3 recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sidley-19mar15-en.mp3
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer:Welcome to the Client Committee call on 19 March.
Grace Abuhamad:Hi Holly and Sharon -- I'm not on audio yet. Joining shortly
Holly Gregory:Good morning Grace.
Jonathan Robinson:Hello all
Cameron Kerry:Hello.
Vivek Mohan:Good morning
Jonathan Robinson:All mics seem open at this stage. Suggest you mute while not talking.
Maarten Simon, SIDN:good morning and afternoon
Grace Abuhamad:Who is Sidley?
Sidley:Good morning, Josh here. I accidentally entered "Sidley" as my name , intending it to be my my password
Grace Abuhamad:Ok Josh, I'll change it for you
Greg Shatan:Dialing in
Josh Hofheimer:Thank you Grace
Grace Abuhamad:Please let me know when you want to start, and I'll commence recordings
Greg Shatan:I am now in.
Grace Abuhamad:I'll circulate the agenda for you on Client list
Brenda Brewer:For the Record: This call is being recorded.
Grace Abuhamad:The agenda is in Istanbul time. There is a 6h difference with East coast and 9h difference with West coast
Grace Abuhamad:That's why we placed the sessions with Sidley in afternoon (so that most can participate)
Greg Shatan:Let's try to raise hands where possible to manage the conversation.
Maarten Simon, SIDN:I would say Day 1 presentation and discussion of the memorandum (highlights not per page), Day 2 discuss internal and external option (+maybe Avri's) with the aim to further work out 2 or max 3 models
Grace Abuhamad:Jonathan -- I muted your line to kill the echo.
Jonathan Robinson:@Maarten - that seems about right. May need a 2 hr session on day 2
Maarten Simon, SIDN:think so
Greg Shatan:Agree with Jonathan & Maarten.
Maarten Simon, SIDN:than it can be ittaritive
Greg Shatan:Faked me out.
Greg Shatan:I would like to touch on this from Sidley: Based on what we have learned to date by reviewing the external and internal proposals, digesting related materials and participating in diligence conversations with you, we are extracting and outlining for ourselves the high level principles, considerations and concerns that it appears are priority items with the CWG for any successful proposal to address. This of course begins with the CWG requirements that have been concisely articulated in the scoping document, with due consideration to the NTIA requirements as well. What we are seeking to understand is whether in the course of CWG’s discussions of alternative proposals to date additional considerations and concerns have emerged that are expressed to some degree in the current proposals and the questions posed related to those proposals – for example, the concern about “capture.”We propose that we have a discussion in Istanbul of the priority items that any successful proposal should accomplish,
Greg Shatan:, address and avoid. This will be in the nature of a review for the CWG but we think it will help move the project forward for us by providing insights into the issues and viewpoints that underlie the current proposals. It will afford an opportunity to test and strengthen our understanding of the CWG’s priorities and criteria and better position us to help the CWG consider how to amend and focus the current proposals as well as advise on potential alternatives.
Sharon Flanagan:At some point we should also discuss the hybrid model that was sent to us yesterday
Greg Shatan:Graphic facilitators....
Holly Gregory:agreed Sharon. Need to discuss new proposal/questions/expectations re timing on our response
Holly Gregory:Jonathan, I think the concept was very clear -- what protects at the next operator and the one after that and the one after that
Sharon Flanagan:Yes I think you address it in one manner and then it applies to each subsequent transition (if outlined well)
Jonathan Robinson:@Holly. Exactly I am concerend that we are eacting against ICANN and only considering step 1
Jonathan Robinson:eacting = reacting
Holly Gregory:Got it!
Josh Hofheimer:Just to alert the participants on this call, both Sharon and I have a hard stop at the top of the hour.
Holly Gregory:greg -- who is performing that day to day operational oversight now? Is NTIA overseeing at that level of detail?
Maarten Simon, SIDN:@ Holly: no
Greg Shatan:NTIA receives a number of monthly reports, as well as annual reports, annual surveys and annual site visits. However, they are not really an active manager on a day-to-day basis.
Holly Gregory:so where is the operational oversight now -- I would expect at ICANN -- and why does the operational oversight change?
Grace Abuhamad:To highlight Maarten's point, this is how NTIA describes their role: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/ntia-s-role-root-zone-management.
Maarten Simon, SIDN:Part of the NTIA contract is setting the SLA and I assume overseeing that it is met. That can be seen as operational oversight
Sharon Flanagan:Grace - could we get a transcript of the CWG meeting Jonathan is referring to where hybrid was discussed?
Grace Abuhamad:Yes
Grace Abuhamad:I will circulate transcript and recording of that meeting
Sharon Flanagan:Thanks. I have to drop off now.
Josh Hofheimer:As do I. Cheers.
Maarten Simon, SIDN:I read it twice and do not feel changes are necessary
Grace Abuhamad:Thanks maarten. Noted
Jonathan Robinson:18h00 UTC FRiday?
Holly Gregory:Many thanks Maarten --
Grace Abuhamad:This is the meeting page that Sharon requested: https://community.icann.org/x/OAYnAw. I will circulate on email list, but I'm posting in chat now just for reference.
Grace Abuhamad:The page includes recording, transcripts, notes, etc
Maarten Simon, SIDN:exactly
Maarten Simon, SIDN:yes from me to
Jonathan Robinson:Or use XPlanbe
Maarten Simon, SIDN:bye
Greg Shatan:Bye.
