Content Comparison

Agenda 

1. Opening Remarks

2. Recap on Key Points from Meeting #50

3. Action Items from Review Tool

4. AOB

5. Closing

Notes

Overall Timeline / Milestones

• 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting
• 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting – review final proposal (sign-off?)
• 8 June - submission to SO/ACs
• 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting – Next steps, communication, other issues
• W/C 8 June – Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June?
• 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires

Current schedule for rest of meetings:

• Meeting #52 (19h00 to 21h00 UTC) – Continue Public Comment Actions Items Summary
• Meeting #53 (07h00 to 09h00 UTC) – Scope of PTI, PTI Board Composition
• Meeting #54 (10h00 to 12h00 UTC) – Accountability mechanisms 
• Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) – Remaining open issues including implementation  

Audio only: Eduardo Diaz; 

How to communicate responses to comments: 

• We will publish Public Comment Review tool on PC page
• We will publish final version of document
• We will communicate final version to community through members, through webinars, etc. 

General Comments

(comments in document)

Section I -- Community's use of IANA

(comments in document)

Text proposed by Elise: CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA 
we don’t see any need for changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .int domain 
should be subject to review post transition.

Action: Elise to send updated text to the CWG list

Section II - Existing pre-transition arrangements

(comments in document)

Section III - IANA Statement of Work

(comments in document)

Section III - Escalation Mechanisms

(comments in document)

Section III -- Framework for Transition to Successor IFO

(comments in document)

Action: Flag under Section IV that separation of physical infrastructure is recommendation for integrity of IANA services (may not being 
required as part of transition but would be good practice)

Section III -- Root Zone Maintainer Function 

(comments in document)

Action: Alan to provide answer on what "proposed entity" should be replaced with?

Section III -- IANA Budget

(comments in document)

Action: DT-O to provide responses on last items in time for next meeting (to continue where we left off)

Action Items

Action: Elise to send updated text to the CWG list

Action: Flag under Section IV that separation of physical infrastructure is recommendation for integrity of IANA services (may not being 
required as part of transition but would be good practice)

Action: Alan to provide answer on what "proposed entity" should be replaced with?

Action: DT-O to provide responses on last items in time for next meeting (to continue where we left off)

Transcript

Recordings

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9lnv7wxln9/

The audio MP3 link is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-2-28may15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (5/28/2015 09:35) Welcome to the CWG IANA Intensive Work Day 1, Session 2 on 28 May 2015.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (09:55) Hello again ...

  Avri Doria: (09:55) hi

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:57) hi there

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (09:59) Muted?

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (10:01) I'm trying to connect my mike but cannot since the meeting is muted ...

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:01) Hello again.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (10:02) Groundhog day? :)

  Staffan Jonson: (10:02) @Josh :-D

  Staffan Jonson: (10:03) Hi all

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (10:03) hi :)

  Lise Fuhr: (10:04) Hello all

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (10:04) Can somebody unmute the session please

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (10:04) There is no sound!

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:04) Jaap -- try reloadeding your AC

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:04) the room is not muted

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:04) and we just started (no other complaints so far)

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (10:05) Got moise,

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (10:14) Jaap opk now?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:15) Afternoon all

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:16) To add to Marika's point, these are not "responses" in a conversational sense. It's a record for how the CWG addressed the comments received.

  Staffan Jonson: (10:16) OK

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:22) The proposal should fully embody the principle of geographic diversity. Particularly, when it comes the member composition of the new mechanism and the relevant election method, it shall ensure the geographic diversity so that developing countries and communities are able to have equal participating opportunities

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:22) Is the text I think

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:22) correct @james

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:22) thanks

  Staffan Jonson: (10:23) Agree Alan. It is reasonably up to AC:s and SO:s to assure geographic representativity

  Greg Shatan: (10:23) Geographic diversity will be easiest for At Large, which is geographically organized.  For the rest, Alan's point is exceedingly important.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (10:23) From memory: the Charter for the CSC does provide for the ccNSO and GNSO considers the compsoition of the group to make sure there is diversity.

  Staffan Jonson: (10:24) and skilset etc.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (10:26) I used the term "weasel words" because in many cases, any given group will only have 1 appointee and for the few cases that there are multiple appointees, it will not significantly alter the outcome.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (10:27) +1 Martin

  Donna Austin, RySG: (10:28) I know we've moved passed this, but this is the language from the CSC Charter relating to comThe full membership of the CSC must be approved by the ccNSO and the GNSO. While it will not be the role of the ccNSO and GNSO to question of validity of any recommended appointments to the CSC they will take into account the overall composition of the proposed CSC in terms of geographic diversity and skill sets.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (10:28) that should be relating to composition

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:28) Lise had suggested this text:

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:29) Elise* proposed this text: CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA we don’t see any need for changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review post transition.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (10:30) Grace  - it has developed a bit since this, but yes,  - the basic is the same.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:30) Elise -- I'm sorry, can you post the latest/updated text here?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (10:32) its in the latest discussion online on the CWG list, - I has been shorten down. I will send it later on the list

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:32) Communicates with themselves?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (10:33) @Brendan, whoever handles the back-end operation for .int should use the same interface to submit changes to the root/whois as any other registry operator or back-end operator.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:33) the IETF community

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:35) Its not a blocker.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:35) Seeing as we going with agile PM methodolgy now

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:36) But needs to be considered and addressed

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (10:36) sorry

  Greg Shatan: (10:37) In bullet point should "reserve of designate" be "reserve OR designate"?

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:37) If Iunderstand the concern, the relative independence of PTI from ICANN comes into play here and would address this issue in part.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:37) That was to the last point

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:40) Agree Jonathan.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:40) I like the way you worded it Jonathan.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:42) Pretty good idea from Martin.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:42) be careful about tying PTI SOW to ICANN indefinitely.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:43) it seems more part of contract

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:43) that would be fine Jonathan, but a reference to review of the SOW might be good.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (10:44) +1 Greg, typically an SOW acompanies a services agreement.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:45) Agree with Greg and Sidley assessment

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (10:45) Like the ICANN-PTI Contract

  Greg Shatan: (10:48) Rules of procedure make sense to hang off the bylaws.  An SOW doesnt.

  Greg Shatan: (10:48) I would not consider this a "viable" approach.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (10:48) Greg, your world is more black and white than mine...

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (10:48) (Written in GREEN)

  Greg Shatan: (10:49) I will switch to red then.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:57) Just wanted to be sure we didn't miss anything :)

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (10:58) @Grace. Understood. The subject of escalation was dealt with in two distict places which makes the situation a bit confusing.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:58) I categorized ALAC comments into the tool so I know it's there, but good that you raised the point again here

  Staffan Jonson: (10:59) There is also the dimension of economic sustainability within the IFR:s and the SIFR visavi CSC

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (11:00) If it had said the RySG, the comment would be different. But regardless, the ALAC is waiving having a true MS component in a number of areas, but this is not one of them.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:02) @Greg, it's not.

  Staffan Jonson: (11:02) +1 Greg

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (11:03) Does no one esle have a problem that the group that the ICANN Bylaws explicitly say is the POLICY BODY be told it should try to fix an operational problem??

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:03) @greg:  right!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:06) @Alan I think its more about the community residing in that structure

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:07) Alan's different wording may be worth considering in my personal opinion.

  Greg Shatan: (11:07) Picking on the IPC.... :-)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:07) Easy picking Greg =)

  Greg Shatan: (11:08) You're making me feel unsafe.  This chat needs a trigger warning.

  Greg Shatan: (11:08) :-)

  Greg Shatan: (11:08) :-)

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (11:08) I had advocated that this by ccNSO and Registries

  Greg Shatan: (11:09) We could probably tweak this -- my main concern is putting a check and balance between the CSC and the SIFR.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:09) Gotta run talk later all

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (11:09) Sorry Greg, those were just the initials I remembered. But it applies to all of the component parts of the GNSO  other than the RySG

  Avri Doria: (11:09) i would have trouble with that.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:09) @Donna:  agree.  ccNSO & RySG

  Avri Doria: (11:10) i have no issue with including others, but do not support limiting it to Registries.

  Greg Shatan: (11:10) If it went to ccNSO/RySG, we would need a multistakeholder check/balance above that, which may start to be unwieldy.

  Greg Shatan: (11:10) +1 to Avri.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (11:10) If ccNSO and RySG are ratifying that ther eis a problem, and it then goes to a wide body with a full MS component, that is fine.

  Greg Shatan: (11:11) +1 to Alan, although I wonder if we want to flatten this to one step, and make it more of an approval process than a problem-solving process.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (11:11) Regarding "setting up a new MS body", the Acct CCWG *will* effectively be setting up a new MS body - the members (or designators). Why not use that.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:13) Jonathan, could i make a short reply after Greg

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (11:13) @Greg. The RySG and ccNSO must be an approval phase. They are not an operations swat team to fix problems. That is about as far as one could imagine in mixing policy and operations.

  Staffan Jonson: (11:13) OK, but only of pure technical issues

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:14) Assuming that escalation steps are not too cumbersome to overly lengthen the process, having multiple escalation steps is a good thing in my view.

  Grace Abuhamad: (11:14) Yes @donna

  Staffan Jonson: (11:14) Agrreed Chuck, several escalation processe are at hand as well

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (11:14) @Chuck, a IFR will take a year (or whatever), holding a few discussions will not unduly delay anything.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:15) Our goal should be to try and solve problems at the lowest level possible.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (11:15) @Chuck, Definitely. Certainly if the PTI Board is anything other than a puppet, certainly they should get involved prior to going to the ICANN Board.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:16) Agree Alan.  DT-M is considering that.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (11:16) @Donna, and presumably in light of the public comments.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:16) yes Alan

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:17) It's been good discussion and I think we have some good touch points to reconsider the work of DT-C

  Avri Doria: (11:23) and that DT-L tye of plan would be reference in an SR initiated transiton.

  Grace Abuhamad: (11:23) Correct. thanks Avri

  Grace Abuhamad: (11:24) So we need to 'connect the dots'

  Staffan Jonson: (11:35) So, it is some extra caution since the authorization function is beeing abolished?

  Grace Abuhamad: (11:36) No, i think it's more related to the architectural change authorization

  Grace Abuhamad: (11:37) but it is an extra precaution in that sense

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:38) this is the language from the CSC Charter: The CSC, in consultation with registry operators, is authorised to discuss with the IANA Functions Operator ways to enhance the provision of IANA’s operational services to meet changing technological environments; as a means to address performance issues; or other unforeseen circumstances. In the event it is agreed that a material change in IANA naming services or operations would be beneficial, the CSC reserves the right to call for a community consultation and independent validation, to be convened by the IANA Functions Operator, on the proposed change. Any recommended change must be approved by the ccNSO and RySG

  Grace Abuhamad: (11:42) Good news on next version of document: we have paragraph numbers so that the section numbering should be a bit easier to 'lighten up' if the group would like

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:42) like that Grace

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:42) right Jonathan

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:45) @Bernie:  confirmng second verification

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (11:46) I beleive that the "manual" changes receive an extra verification over and above the normal ones.\

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:47) @Bernie:  exactly the right approach

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (11:47) That is one of the reasons that DT-F offered a short-term replacement for NTIA approval which absolutely minimized changes

  Kurt Pritz: (11:48) I think this approval could be done through the CSC and they could secure the necessary expertise on a case-by-case basis

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:49) @Kurt:  I do not think so

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:49) it is a much wider issue

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:49) Probably need to create an expert group on a case by case basis

  Staffan Jonson: (11:50) Alan: seems more resonable

  Kurt Pritz: (11:50) @ Martin: who should create the team of experts?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:51) @Kurt:  the wider community?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:54) That's fine Jonathan.

  Kurt Pritz: (11:54) @ Martin - Say IANA is introducing a new form of automation. WIthout CSC input, the wider community appoints experts who approve the new IANA service. I think the direct customers would want to select who does the expert analysis so that direct customers' concerns are addressed. ---- Letting this go now

  Brenden Kuerbis: (11:54) With what are we agreeing?  While this may be true... might be better

  Grace Abuhamad: (11:55) will corret that Brenden

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:55) everyone else pays a bit more...?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:56) Note that the IETF makes no financial contributions to ICANN.

  Avri Doria: (11:57) Registrants underpin the budget of ICANN

  Avri Doria: (11:58) and ICANN pays the whole fee for IANA.  I did not think the RIR contributions were earmarked for IANA expenses.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:58) Up until now, no funds are earmarked for IANA expenses, but the RySG/RrSG comments are asking that this be done moving forward.

  Avri Doria: (12:00) i read it the same way the Alan did.  that is why i gave the answer i did.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:00) I don't it is fair that the numbers communities gets their services for free.  They contribute $800K per year.

  Avri Doria: (12:01) that contribution is not earmarked for IANA and covers other services they get from ICANN as well.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:01) Agree Avri.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:01) How about IANA should maintain adequate reserves to continue operations?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:02) It was very useful in my opinion.  Thanks everyone.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:02) Another productive call today.  Thank you.

  Lise Fuhr: (12:03) Thnak you all

  Staffan Jonson: (12:03) Thank You all

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (12:03) OK, see you later

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:03) thanks all