Content Comparison

Proposed Agenda: 

• Welcome & Rules of Engagement (Jonathan, Lise)

• CCWG-Accountability Update (Leon, Thomas, Avri)

• DT-A Service Level Expectations (Paul)

Notes 

Welcome & Rules of Engagement

• Please remember to state your names before speaking
• Please refer to the design teams not only by their letter but also reference the topic considered
• Orientation document prepared by Xplane has been distributed to all
• Objective to produce a short form proposal - to contain highest level of substance, all other details to be moved to appendices. Following model of proposals from other communities to facilitate ICG's work. Representing consensus of the CWG. Consensus will likely require compromise. 
• F2F meeting - make significant progress in view of producing document for public comment shortly thereafter; review input provided by design teams, focusing on core recommendations and identify possible future work; complete list of any outstanding DTs; review and leverage CCWG work; mapping document circulated yesterday to potentially serve as a tool, not a direction.
• When discussing issues, focus on what problem are we trying to solve for. 
• Presentations of DT follow logical order.
• Please keep contributions to 2 minutes or less and avoid repeating points that have already been made.

CCWG-Accountability Update 

• See also powerpoint presentation
• CCWG developed inventory of existing accountability mechanisms in Singapore and identified requirements for enhancing accountability. CCWG is now in the process of designing the solutions that will be stress tested. CCWG has identified 25 stress tests that will need to be met. 
• Key pillars are empowered community, board, principles in bylaws and independent appeal mechanisms. To enhance accountability, this would include possiblity for the community: to remove the board; block bylaw changes; return the budget for review and modification to meet  the requirements of the community (including for example for the IANA function); approve fundamental bylaws. These powers to be excercised to a number of mechanisms incl. ATRT, IRP, Standing Community Committee, modifying corporate structure, community veto (these are currently work in progress and under consideration using a template approach to identify main components).
• Continue to work with legal advisors
• Objective to produce a first document for public comment before BA
• IRP to be modified to include reviewing merits of the case and not only process. Community to have standing to initiate proceedings. Could include a panel that would specifically focus on IANA related issues. 
• CWG may wish to add additional contingencies that could be considered as part of the stress testing. In the stress test work, attempts are made to include the CWG questions that were submitted to the CCWG so it may be worth for the CWG to review these at some point. 
• CCWG also considering adding ATRT/AoC recommendations to Bylaws
• IRP work is critical as it closely links to requirements of CWG - should be agile and effective. 
• CWG has strong interest in allocation in the budget to the IANA function - is both a requirement as well as a stress test. Is CWG satisfied that work of CCWG will meet the requirements of financial transparency and accountability in relation to the IANA function?
• Mechanisms are intended to be used by agrieved parties when necessary, including the option for the community to hold the management responsible if needed.
• CWG to consider mandating the level of detail that needs to be provided concerning the IANA budget. Veto would be ultimate recourse.
• How is accountability for just the IANA part for its direct customers and what remedies do the direct customers have to address any issues? CCWG is looking at overall accountability, but is cognisant of requirements of CWG concerning IANA, for example auditing options that would review only IANA and use of IRP. Furthermore DT A and DT M should ensure that IANA is operationally accountable. 
• Accountability mechanisms should have an escalation path across the suite of accountability mehcanisms that is workable and properly 'graded'
• DT to empower community to address and resolve the problems before escalation happens. Escalation is a sign of failure - issues should ideally be fixed before it gets to that point.

Action (Cheryl): CWG to review CCWG stress tests to ensure that these address questions previously raised and/or consider whether additional stress tests/requirements need to be included. Also consider how these relate to RFP 4 work. 

Action: CWG to scope and specify the IANA budget requirements (as part of existing or possibly new DT)

DT-A Service Level Expectations

• See also DT summary presentation as well as document shared by DT A
• DT reviewed current SLEs/performance - IANA performing very well
• Has DT A gone beyond its remit - shouldn't change how IANA currently operates, for example automation requirement. Automation should not hold up transition. Many processes are already automated - what is still missing? Desire from some registries for end to end automation (IANA API). 
• Consider removing response time of registries from SLEs
• Penalties for non-performance are problematic. Ultimate accountability sanction should not impact the operation of IANA. DT has not been able to identify a penalty that makes sense.
• DT recommending what IANA is actually doing today. 
• Also consider how to manage management and not only the board. 
• Are these targets or contractually binding arrangements? In the case of IANA, some parties may have contracts, others may not. SLEs should accomodate both - has same standing as SLA, but does not require a formal agreement between the two parties. 

Action: Confirm that SLEs are realistic from IANA / Root Zone Maintainer perspective. 

Action Items

Action (Cheryl): CWG to review CCWG stress tests to ensure that these address questions previously raised and/or consider whether additional stress tests/requirements need to be included. Also consider how these relate to RFP 4 work. 

Action: CWG to scope and specify the IANA budget requirements (as part of existing or possibly new DT)

Action: Confirm that SLEs are realistic from IANA / Root Zone Maintainer perspective. 

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 1 26 March.doc

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 1 26 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5gfhhl2vqb/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-1-26mar15-en.mp3