Content Comparison

Transcript

Transcript CWG DT-C 20 March.doc

Transcript CWG DT-C 20 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8hym19jsqb/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-dtc-20mar15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda:

Agenda DTC (CSC) meeting 20 March 2015 (16.00-18.00 UTC)

1. Welcome and roll call

2. Work process before Monday 6 PM UTC

3. documents 

• • Google Doc
  • Donna overview
  • Template

4. Preparation before Istanbul

5. Next meeting & AoB

Notes

1. All DT members present + Kim Davies ( IANA )

2. Prep Monday 6 pm UTC ( delivery time discussion paper DTC )

3. Document Discussion

• ·  GOOGLE DOC   Staffan's changes, reflect discussion with ccTLDs ove rlast days
• ·  Suggestion to go over text, in particular insertions from SSAC 069

Changes section a

Kim: the way changes are presented is artefact from IANA contract

1.1. is superset of 1.2 ( Changes in area 1.1 automatically result in changes in area 1.2.)

Point 2. Substantial changes for TLD

Kim suggest text for Google text 

1. Changes an appointed registry makes:        1.1 Changes to the root zone file (technical changes published in the DNS)        1.2 Changes to the root zone database (updates to technical and contact data        published on the IANA website and via WHOIS protocols)2. Changes of registry appointments (i.e. delegation of new TLDs, transfer of existing   TLDs, removing delegation of existing TLDs)

Donna: capture in table is what is currently situation and what needs to change as result of transition

See table C2.9.a.b

Martin: Caution about involvement of the CSC (third parties) in sensitive area of ccTLD delegations and redelgations

Also similar concern with regard to gTLD delegation and redelgation

As suggested by Donna: no role for CSC in delegation and redelegation of TLDs 

Q: will it be challenged during the meeting?

Note Potential overlap with Authorization:

No role of CSC with regard to Authorization, only lead to delays

- Maybe only role in MONITORING of Authorization.

• ·  Current reporting:

- Monthly reporting only seen by NTIA (confidential) ( DNSES key rollover, changes

Question: how would CSC deal with confidential reports.

In some cases ( issues with regard to individual)

Public reports: 

• IETF report
• Affidavit report
• Dashboard ( root zone changes report)

• ·  Point 3.2 (SSAC 069 report). In the course of regular business of IANA need correct licenses to conduct work. 

Pro-active

certification, implies third party, understand

Sarah: Government related issues, and should be treated as such

Defer issue certification to DT OFAc licensing etc

• ·  CSC discussion

Sentences on cusotmers in Composition section and internal method of working

Sentences, on SLE/SLA are referred in table. Role of CSC is to monitor SLE/SLA. 

Include Placeholder language. 

Martin: CSC could organise discussion. Primary role to get information out of IANA, and making it available to wider community if reviewing at SLE/SLA, initiate discussion.

Sarah: SLE are set, and then somebody needs to check against these criteria.

For monitoring CSC members look at their members

Often forgotten communicating with broader community

• · 

Kim: Does group have a sense of scope what falls under Naming function?

Not just root zone

also includes: .INT and .ARPA

And auxiliary functions, IDN Table repository

• ·  Question: If CSC does not take these on,  who will?

In curren tversion 2.1 of proposal .INT and IDN Table are included. David Conrad reading through document

.ARPA addressed in IETF proposal

.INT and IDN-> Specific DT s

• ·  Kurt: CSC would be vehicle for changing SLA

CSC on review

Stephanie, there is another DT for this

Should be role for the CSC, ensure it does not fall in the cracks

CSC and appeals mechanism

Strike section, part of letter'

Breach of IFO functions

Map against Kurt did.

Donna: porposed text questions some of the text . Do GAP analysis between the two.

Note also DT M (escalation), and need to coordinate

Kurt: suggest to look at Donna's document

Escalation process is complex to design, and implement

Real escalation process needs to be improved over time

Include Placeholder Breach by IFO 

Overview of Consensus elements

Donna present document

What are key-points what CSC would do. 

Includes mapping to sections of template DT C ( section A-J)

Includes and builds on Sarah's table

Area not covered C (Stephanie) and D (Martin)

Template Marika does not provide structure to tell story

Stephanie: Add specific Placeholders section, to show waiting for further input

Use Kurt's org chart

Staffan: Good way to present in Istanbul 

Area's it may be challenged.  Escalation

Martin: Possible they might be challenged. 

Is current table, key of what we are doing. Current escalation process, is internal in CSC, 

External Escalation is once issue for other DT 

Kurt: Suggest to use overview as starting point for deliverable. Get sense of group core is right

Donna: work through document to seek agreement, 

Section A: Agreement

Section B: Include monitoring the IANA and ensuring (agreed)

Also suggested Oversight of the performance 

Section C:  Restucture to reflect: Engage in cooperative communication ir order to ...

Section D: Agreed

Section E: change to IANA Naming Function, possibly broader then direct customer  

Kim: more often than annual. 

Issue: intermediating between IETF and community on implementation

Emerging technologies and services and periodic reviews as separate point 

Monthly meetings to include emerging technologies

Annual meeting, is getting people together, and consider 

Agreement to split in two bullets

Suggested txt: 

The CSC will engage with IANA, the direct customers of the IANA naming function, and the ICANN community to discuss emerging technologies and issues that might impact the provision of IANA services. • (E2-> F) The CSC shall hold an annual meeting with the IANA Functions Operator, the direct customers of the IANA Naming Functions, and the ICANN community to discuss the performance of the IANA Naming functions and any changes to the services that are underway or forthcoming. 

Section F: rather call it operation/addressing problems, 

Identify that CSC may get involved b=in between meetings, second four stage process ( STRAWMAN), it is multi-stage escalation process is recommend,

Needs to evolve over time (evolutionary approach)

Section G: The CSC could be initial point of context (not escalation)

The reality of process today: current escalation is not always need, 

What is expectation if IANA has tried to address issue. Mediation point

There has to be some criteria/ parameters around complaints. Mindful if complaint was already 

Remove initial, 

Strike last sentence (The CSC .... and its processes)

Include reference to ccNSO/GNSO when relevant

Section H: 

Different numbers in different proposals

Why is SSAC member?

Proposal is minimum composition

In other document reference to direct customers

Include minimal composition

However keep as small as possible

- Registry operator are full of technical/operator capable people, SSAC could be asked as for advise

- Go forward with lean configuration

- CSC correspond with larger groups 

Makes sense to have communication with SSAC (liaison role) useful, in particular when isse beyond one group purview 

Alternative approach look at principles 

Section I: 

Be clear what purpose of additionals and liaisons are: and not leave it up to CSC to appoint.

At same time additional people may be useful

Reference in Underlyimng document to liaison as "temporary". Note in other context permanent

Attach liaisons to CSC from GAC, ALAC, non-contracted part GNSO

Section J:  Include marker, refer to mechanisms identified in CCWG Accountability

Stephanie suggest additional bullet: The CSC shall facilitate public comment periods and other community participation opportunities in the event that changes are proposed that would affect oversight of the IANA Naming Functions. 

 Agreed

Google doc, background for DT C, proceeed working on  overview document 

Action Stephanie: capture discussion in next version overview document, and circulate for discussion

Action staff: Send out Doodle for Monday afternoon (at latest closure 1 before close of the call)

Action Items

Action Stephanie: capture discussion in next version overview document, and circulate for discussion

Action staff: Send out Doodle for Monday afternoon (at latest closure 1 before close of the call)

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer:Welcome to the DTC Meeting on 20 March.

  Brenda Brewer:Loud and Clear Bernie!

  B:+1

  B:how does one change their name?

  Brenda Brewer:I don't know...let me see if I can figure out.

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff:got it

  Brenda Brewer::)

  Donna Austin, RySG:Hi all, just dialling in

  Staffan Jonson:Hi All

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Hi all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:fine by me

  Bart Boswinkel:It is scrollable

  Donna Austin, RySG:Does everyone have the other doc I sent overnight?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:I have them both!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:clarity on what is actually done from Kim, please!

  Kurt 2:Could everyone please mute

  Kurt 2:What Martin is recommending is essentially maintaining the status quo; if Martin's opinion is challenged our position should be that we should seek to maintaint the status quo  in every case where possible

  Kurt 2:Even in authorization, the authorization function verifies that IANA follows it processes and does not get into the content of the redelegation request

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Kurt:  I like status quo for starting point for most things

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:+! to Kurt

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:+1

  Kim Davies:Suggested tweaked wording for 1 and 2>

  Kim Davies:1. Changes an appointed registry makes:        1.1 Changes to the root zone file (technical changes published in the DNS)        1.2 Changes to the root zone database (updates to technical and contact data        published on the IANA website and via WHOIS protocols)2. Changes of registry appointments (i.e. delegation of new TLDs, transfer of existing   TLDs, removing delegation of existing TLDs)

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:would we want the CSC to do this?

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Sarah - I don't think so

  Kurt 2:Sanctions = a monetary fine?

  Donna Austin, RySG:I thought there was a group dealing with OFAC stuff

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):i  thought so too

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):if not it makes sense to me as a separate DT

  Kim Davies:The CSC may have an interest in knowing about this issue insofar as it is impacting the IANA's operators ability to do its work, rather than be involved in the specifics of the process

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):placeholder it for now

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:as we say in the ITU - bracket that text :)

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):taking our processes from ITU now...suspect ;)

  Bart Boswinkel:Ther e si sDT OFAC, but has lower priority

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:agree

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:ok that makes sense

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:thanks

  Kurt 2:I don't know why my mic isn't working

  Kurt 2:I think one of the more improtant roles is adapting to change: SLAs will change, the ecalation processes wil lhave to be tested and revamped and so on. We should make an accomodation to change all these things. I think the CSC role in adapting to change is just as important as the monitoring role

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:.int has its own DT

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:I think another group is dealing with these issues, no?

  Donna Austin, RySG:Agree Kurt

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Agree Kurt, but I would want this to be a wider discussion.  Not just a CSC discussion and decision

  Donna Austin, RySG:Agree with Bernie, we should capture to make sure it does not fall throught the cracks.

  Kurt 2:the CSC would be the vehicle for changing SLAs - getting input for TLDs and negotiating with IANA

  Kurt 2:my mic is broke

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:Agree with Donna

  Kurt:ready to go

  Donna Austin, RySG:Let's get Kurt to speak to this point now and then we can come back to my doc

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff:@Kurt +1

  Bart Boswinkel:Scrollable

  Kurt:first line is perfect

  Kurt:"Responsible for monitoring performance"

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:nice one Kurt

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff:item B OVERSIGHT of the performance of the IANA naming functions

  Bart Boswinkel:@ Stephanie lowerd your hand, please rasie again

  Bart Boswinkel:if needed

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:agree Stephaie

  Kurt:EVERYTHING will evolve over time

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):•     E The CSC will engage with IANA, the direct customers of the IANA naming function, and the ICANN community to discuss emerging technologies and issues that might impact the provision of IANA services. •     F The CSC shall hold an annual meeting with the IANA Functions Operator, the direct customers of the IANA Naming Functions, and the ICANN community to discuss the performance of the IANA Naming functions and any changes to the services that are underway or forthcoming.

  Kim Davies:Our experience is anyone can be an initial point of contact, we can't control that :)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:sort things out bilaterally is always best

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):i would also like to bullet out what we want as "placeholders"

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):then i can draft those and recirculate

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:agree bernie

  Kurt:1) Why is SSAC a member? What is role?

  Kim Davies:If the scope is determined to include non-root functions (.INT etc.), it is worth considering how those communities would find the composition.

  Kurt:2) Also mention that the CSC will consult with the TLD community as needed

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:I think having an SSAC liasion makes sense

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:to the extend that that group is proving broader security guidance it makes sense to be kept appraised of that (I am thinking about when things like DNSSEC rolled out, etc.)

  Donna Austin, RySG:Sorry everyone, I just lost voice. I need to dial back in

  Donna Austin, RySG:Bernie then Kurt

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:RSSAC &SSAC as liaisons would be best

  Donna Austin, RySG:i'm back

  Donna Austin, RySG:sorry i missed most of this discussion

  Kurt:If Martin doesn't like this, maybe we can adjust it to say that Bylaws will be written governing CSC operations, confguration, etc

  Kurt:...and how changes are made going forward

  Kurt:No more liaisons

  Kurt:you will never get rid of them

  Kurt:just make a mechanism for adding them

  Bart Boswinkel:@ Stepanie, Donna old hands?

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):I suggest an additional bullet: The CSC shall facilitate public comment periods and other community participation opportunities in the event that changes are proposed that would affect oversight of the IANA Naming Functions.

  Staffan Jonson:Kurt:"you will never get rid of them" :-D

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff:+1

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Stephanie +1

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:I do not promise to read anything this evening!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:I'll look on Sunday

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:+1 Donna

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):i think for now we should just be circulating this overview document

  Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):keep the google doc in our back pocket and build it out as we discuss in istanbul

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:use overview as our key doc to Istanbul

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff:@Donna +1

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:I'll be in Istanbul

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:For the CCWG

  Donna Austin, RySG:Thanks Bart, it's a good suggestion.

  Brenda Brewer:I will send Doodle for Monday call.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:thanks all & bye:  see you next week!

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff:bye

  Kim Davies:Cheers