Attendees:
Members:
Participants:
Staff: Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad
Apologies: (Marika Konings, staff)
**Please let Grace know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Proposed Agenda:
Notes & Action Items:
Transcript
...
Sub-group Members: Avri Doria, Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Brenden Kuerbis, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Christopher Wilkinson, Chuck Gomes, Donna Austin, Gary Hunt, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jinkang Yao, Lars Eric Forsberg, Le-Marie Thompson, Matthew Shears, Maarten Simon, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Olivier Crepin Leblond, Peter Van Roste, Phil Corwin, Seun Ojedeji, Sivasubramanim Muthusamy, Yasuichi Kitamura
Staff: Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad
Apologies: Eduardo Diaz; (Marika Konings, staff)
**Please let Grace know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
...
Proposed Agenda:
1. Welcome & Roll Call
2. Discussion of MRT Functional Analysis
3. Discussion of MRT Structural Analysis
Notes & Action Items:
Discussion MRT Functional Analysis
Discussion MRT Functional Analysis needed to resolve issues around overlap between MRT and CSC
Proposal still in flux awaiting closure of public comment, not preempt on outcome of public comment and its impact, at the same need to fill in details.
Detail RFP process details, require to fill in
Question: once the MRT membership is selected, almost independent or should reach out and inform broader community to inform them of what is happening
Response: representatives are selected as representatives of their stakeholder communities, and report back to stakeholder community.. Different models of representation: from free agent (completely autonomous) to fully instructed by stakeholder group that selects person.
Question: should way of representation be reflected in charter of MRT?
Consultation process by MRT,needs to be considered and defined., seek input from broader community: basically open, in particular around major decisions. Take into account what needs to be achieved to define need for broader consultations. When a decision is made, public consultation are needed (principle)
Differentiation of decision to determine need for public consultations
IANA Budget topic
- ICANN is IANA Functions Operator, hence function is financed by ICANN. IANA Functions Budget to be reviewed by MRT
- Budget review and administration of IANA by MRT should be separated. need for publication of budget by Board
- IANA Budget review process for future consideration
Annual Review
- Performance review No comments on Performance review text
- Budget review: : publish budget. Review of budget
- Need for consultation of IANA budget?
- IANA function budget to be
Issue instruction to Contract Co item
RFP process:
- To be discussed mandatory RFP on only when needed> to be discussed later
- Comments: What are costs associated with MRT and how will be funded? Discussion to be held later ( not functional), should also include discussion on magnitude and way how community will deal with budget.
- Address any escalation issues raised by CSC
- Missing component other entities (for example GNSO or ccNSO) standing to complain with MRT. Who monitors policy implementation and may complain. Refinement with regard to policy, meant is processes. Issues of process/service degradation is missing. Need to avoid rigid rules of having standing with MRT.
- Address issue that community may bring issues to the MSC.
- Policy developments bodies are entities to monitor and complaint
- Individual TLD operator could alert SO, with regard to issues on implementation.
- CSC could/ should be enabled to inform SO and AC's
- Suggestion to include policy implementation persons in CSC
- Need for communication channels, in case of separation
MRT to Perform some elements of administration currently in IANA Functions
No Comments first bullet (C.2.1.2)
C.3.2: Secure systems notification
General comment: general interest by operators in reporting. Ensure publication of reports, also to allow CSC to review operational reviews.
Action: compare and delineate roles of CSC and MRT with regard to review of reports
C.4.1 annual program review, genesis of MRT. NTIA schedules one yearly site visit currently ( confirmed)
Suggestion to limit/ reduce site visit to reduce costs. Also questionable who should do site visit ( CSC or MRT)
C.4.4 Tagged as going to MRT. no comment
C.4.5. Collaborate annual Customer Service Survey. No Comment
C 4.6. Final report IANA Operator. No comment
C 4.7 and C.5.4.. Active monitoring function upon receipt. No comment
C 5.2. receive annual report. Question: only MRT or only CSC, both CSC and MRT, only upon escalation. Suggestion only MRT., Annual report
question should all reports listed still be published? Need to provide a rationale for change. Action take to the list
C.5.2. No comment. logic ally for CSC
C.5.3. Annual audit report. for MRT no comments,
C.6 Continue
C.7 Continue
General if yearly function MRT
Further consideration of Specific MRT Functions
- To be fully discussed at next meeting
- Explanation of headings
- How is IANA Performance taking place?
- Process concerns
Next call Monday 22 December, 14.00-16.00 UTC
- Group to look at Section 3 Further Consideration
- Group to continue structural analysis CSC
- Discuss Composition of MRT and related decision processes of MRT.
Close of call at 15.54 UTC
Transcript
Transcript posted here: RFP 3 Subgroup Meeting #5.pdf
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p496lx5a5u2/
The audio recording is available here: (will be posted when available)https://icann.box.com/shared/static/i94af8mwvhhslm3o5m6a.mp3
Documents Presented
MRT Functional Analysis 18Dec2014.pdf
...