Agenda

Continue Public Comment Actions Items Summary

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 #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  and timescales

Notes: Comments are being addressed in document directly

Action Items

None

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA Session 3 28 May.doc

Transcript CWG IANA Session 3 28 May.pdf

Recordings

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2qy98pthfd/

The audio MP3 link is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-3-28may15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (5/28/2015 13:37) Welcome to the CWG IANA Intensive Work Day 1, Session 3 on 28 May 2015.

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:56) Hi Avri

  Avri Doria: (13:56) hi

  Sabine Meyer: (13:56) hey guys

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (13:57) hello

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:57) Hey everybody.  Welcome back.  Good to be here .... again.

  Alan Greenberg: (13:58) Hours 5-6.  Doesn't time fly when you are having fun!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:58) here we are again

  Staffan Jonson: (13:58) Hi all

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (13:58) !Hola a todos!

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (13:58) Welcome back!

  Alan Greenberg: (13:58) That was Olivier and 500 of his closest friend!

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:59) Is this the part of the ride where we put our hands up and say, "Whee!" ?

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:59) You betcha!

  Avri Doria: (13:59) you first Andrew

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:59) Whee!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (13:59) Whoooooeee!

  Avri Doria: (13:59) Whee!

  Alan Greenberg: (14:00) BUt were your hands up??

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:00) It's hard to type with your hands in the air.

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:00) Tricky to hold the laptop.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:01) This is obviously when the delerium sets in

  Sabine Meyer: (14:01) if that's delirious already I'm looking forward to day 2 :)

  Sabine Meyer: (14:01) also: WHEEEEEE

  Allan MacGillivray: (14:01) Wheeeeeeeeee!

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (14:01) weeeeeeee!

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:02) good to know everyone is paying attention!

  Greg Shatan: (14:02) Hello all.

  Avri Doria: (14:02) out hands have been up in mepaphircal surrender for a long time now.

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:02) @greg -- buzzkill

  Sabine Meyer: (14:02) totes

  Avri Doria: (14:02) .. metaphorical..  hard to type with laptap in the air.

  Greg Shatan: (14:03) Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

  Sabine Meyer: (14:03) that's the spirit!

  Avri Doria: (14:03) serious now

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:03) Public voices now =)

  Sabine Meyer: (14:03) shhhhhhh

  Allan MacGillivray: (14:06) Am I the only one for whom Lise is cutting in and out on audio?

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:07) Are you using AC audio @Allan? If so, that may be the issue

  Brenda Brewer: (14:07) I hear Lise on AC clearly.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:07) Im on AC audio seems fine

  Allan MacGillivray: (14:08) I logged in agian and thiungs seem to be fine now.

  Marika Konings: (14:11) The comments that Chuck is referring to come back under PTI

  Marika Konings: (14:12) (comments made by AFNIC)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:16) RandD would come under COntinuous IMprovement/OPerational Excellece operational costings

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:19) I doubt that PTI is going to be coming looking for 60/70 million for something =)

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (14:21) +1 Martin

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:22) @ Martin:  Ensuring IANA is properly funded doesn't seem like miromanagement to me.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:22) It is the way it is done, Chuck

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:23) It seems to me that if a commenter asked for more detail and we think that it would be micromanagement, we could say that the details are a management issue to be worked out by the PTI.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:23) Im not sure I understand the concern at a very granular level. Once we have a solid commitment to the budgetary process being a solid and well designed one there shouldnt be any need to go looking into line items or subdepartmental costings?

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:23) (I don't have an opinion on this particular issue, that's just a general observation about responding to comments.)

  Staffan Jonson: (14:24) Since the relation is regulated by contract, the contract

  Staffan Jonson: (14:24) will provide detail...

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:26) IPC text for refernce "We urge the CWG to replicate these oversight mechanisms to the greatest extent appropriate in any new agreement or other documentation controlling ICANN and/or PTI’s activities in connection with the IANA Function."

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:29) Greg would never allow that of the IPC :p

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:29) The language quoted in the second sentence is not in the draft.  It was propsed by Italy.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:29) Greg rules with a strong english dictionary.

  Staffan Jonson: (14:30) This has been noticed in several places, e.g. from CRISP. SUppose we need to remind ICG about several parallel review functions

  Marika Konings: (14:30) Just checking whether you were still awake, Greg ;-)

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:30) It's not that late in the US!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:31) The ICG will be the mediator for that surely

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:37) it's numbers and names or numbering and naming

  Staffan Jonson: (14:37) Thank Greg, you put it better than I do

  Greg Shatan: (14:38) I have the advantage of being monolingual (other than some tortured "French").  Don't want people to think we're shy.

  Greg Shatan: (14:39) I thought it was numbers, but I didn't want to be presumptuous (i.e., stray from our remit).

  Avri Doria: (14:40) as few changes as apossible, and the PTI is not yet running code, it is just theory.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (14:40) Maybe we can mention that we've considered varios contractual arrangements that arepossbile

  Greg Shatan: (14:40) In New York, we've had the numbers for decades.  (Illegal betting ... and "running numbers" means carrying bets back to the bookie.)

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:41) Agree @Jonathan

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:41) We had to to make the proposal viable though. What we have up there is right

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:43) fudamental incompatability

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:44) FWIW, I have checked that in the IETF's MoU

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:44) and there's no such prohibition

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:45) Moreover, my understanding of the relevant jurisdiction (which is itself a tricky matter) is that subcontracting is permitted where not explicitly forbidden

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:47) (I should note that I am not a lawyer.)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (14:47) yup!

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:49) I don't want to distract, so this is a sidebar, but the jurisduction issue in the IETF MoU case is because the MoU doesn't explicitly call out a jurisdiction, so one could have a fight about in theory.  Probably it's California, though.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:51) lot of percussion...

  Brenda Brewer: (14:52) Heavy typer, please mute your line.

  Kurt Pritz: (14:55) The question is whether improvement before transition is Essential - from Bernard's answer, it seems that improvements to SLEs are not essential

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:55) good question @chuck

  Brenden Kuerbis: (14:58) have to run, thanks all, really productive session so far

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:59) Thank-you Brenden

  Kurt Pritz: (14:59) The Nominet and auDA questions are the same

  Donna Austin, RySG: (15:00) Agree with Andrew.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:01) Indeed, Lise

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:01) I agree with Andrew, too

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (15:02) typo: should SLAs be SLEs in "DTA is aiming to improve the existing SLAs" 

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (15:03) Old term SLA; new DT-A term SLE.

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:04) Got it @Holly  thanks!

  Andrew Sullivan: (15:05) I'm not going to chime in by voice, but as I already argued on list, it may be good business practice but poor engineering practice to change these now.

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (15:06) i have to drop

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (15:06) Greg - haND?y

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (15:06) i may be back before this call ends

  Avri Doria: (15:07) I think e need to define the base line we have got now.  and buld on that later.  having todays base line agreed upon and documented is both good business and engineering proactice.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (15:07) The RySG/RrSG comments state that the SLEs included in the proposal must be agreed with IANA and the Root Zone Maintainer. We reiterate that current level ov service provided by IANA is satisfactory and we do not believe there is any reason to jeopadise that level of service immediately folllowing transition by setting service levels that may not be attainable. We nnote that there is provision within the CSC Carter to reveiw the SLEs every 12 months, and will also be reviewed as part of the reviews conducted by the IANA Functions Regview  Team

  Greg Shatan: (15:07) Obviously you don't increase them to the exact performance level, there needs to be a gap, otherwise PTI would go in the red for de minimus changes.

  Andrew Sullivan: (15:07) I agree strongly with what Martin is saying now

  Avri Doria: (15:07) i thought we needed the car we have now.

  Avri Doria: (15:08) guaranteed. and defined.

  Avri Doria: (15:08) set as a base line.

  Avri Doria: (15:09) so it would be ok, for IANA to slip back to what was defined as opposed to continuing at the level they are at?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:10) @Avri:  it might be

  Avri Doria: (15:11) seems odd both business and engineering wise to me.  but if that is what all the direct cusmters are comfortable with. ...

  Andrew Sullivan: (15:11) I am not arguing that the SLAs as they are today are great or should continue in the future.  What I am arguing is that we shouldn't change these now.  Look at this like an experiment: you want to know whether what you change is making a positive or negative effect (or having no effect at all)

  Andrew Sullivan: (15:11) if you change the measurement instrument while making other changes, your experiment is completely invalid

  Avri Doria: (15:11) i was arguing that the actual should be defined.  not that they should be improved.

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (15:13) What Bernie said is a long standing problem and the situation has approved since the first time I looked to the metrics (around 2002)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:13) @Lise:  agree

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:13) agree with you @avri

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:14) Can we go back to our inital whee! comments in response to that =)

  Alan Greenberg: (15:15) Good systems design and change management says to change as little as possible at the same time. We are again tryingto use "this one kick at the can" to fix issues that we should be deferring.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:17) @Donna +1

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (15:17) Aren't SLAs/SLEs supposed to be negotiated at contracting time?

  Staffan Jonson: (15:17) Donna +1

  seun: (15:21) +1 to Alan on that

  Sabine Meyer: (15:21) tempting fate and using the term "monopsony" in the same remark...kudos.

  Avri Doria: (15:22) Lise, I agree, that is why I have joined in the discussion about making it more other stakeholder friendly

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:22) Yes, Lise.  And the CSC charter does not mention members versus participants

  Greg Shatan: (15:22) Back to that strong dictionary....

  Avri Doria: (15:22) ... have not joined in ...

  Kurt Pritz: (15:23) The liaison model allows others to participate as much as they want. No one outside the registries have participated yet so it doesn't make sense to mandate participation by these previously disinterested groups.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:23) and a CSC open to visibility is good.  we want people who can

  seun: (15:23) I have always wondered why the rule of "its either now or never" will get extended to SLE. If we cannot review/improve  the SLE post transition then we'd better not go through the transition process

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:23) conotribute

  Greg Shatan: (15:23) Pish tush. Everyone loves IANA now!!

  Avri Doria: (15:24) Greg, very true. love IANA.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:24) @Staffan:  exactly

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:24) so long as it works transparently

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:24) We need 'I heart NYC style' tshirts for that Greg

  Avri Doria: (15:25) being transparent and having a way to get a message under the CSC dome has to be possible. if laisons can speak, that is ok.

  Alan Greenberg: (15:25) Once upon a time, we also concluded on Contract Co.

  Avri Doria: (15:26) and we can go back to it if you like.

  Avri Doria: (15:26) some still love that idea.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:27) Think there's a typo in IntenetNZ's comment

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (15:27) ?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:28) @Lise agree

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:28) up to the GAC

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:28) And an informed GAC liaisonhas to be good!

  Marika Konings: (15:28) @Martin - I just checked and that is actually what the comment says, but I guess they meant how prevention of inappropriate influence can be assured

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (15:29) Agree - I think we have to look more on this before we type any answer..

  Marika Konings: (15:29) (unless we copied it incorrectly in the color code document ;-)

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (15:30) +1 Steffan

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:30) assuring inappropriat eicann influence?

  seun: (15:31) eicann will be a new acronym to the ever growing list

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:32) @ Seun:  my fat fingers :-)

  Alan Greenberg: (15:33) The ALAC chose to make some of their comments on the CSC under Annex G, we really should be reviewing both at the same time.

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:33) we will

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:33) the annex comments follow

  Alan Greenberg: (15:34) ok, in the doc distributed Annexes appeaar at the end.

  Staffan Jonson: (15:34) Hold on Bylaw in what organization?

  Marika Konings: (15:34) @Alan, we reorganised it for this call

  Donna Austin, RySG: (15:35) Agree with Avri, recognition of the CSC in the ICANN bylaws is a good idea.

  Alan Greenberg: (15:35) @Marika, that must be a violation of transparency!  ;-)

  Avri Doria: (15:35) right it is part of ICANN's mechansim for dealing with the PTI.  does not make sense to put it in the PTI.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (15:36) i am back

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (15:37) I assumed the same as Avri -that it was an ICANN bylaw issue to describe CSC

  Staffan Jonson: (15:37) What would this do to escalation processes?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:37) agree Donna

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:38) Holly: Would CSC need to be referenced in PTI governnce docs to ensure it has scope and authority over PTI ?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:38) *authority prob wrong word

  Staffan Jonson: (15:38) CSC in ICANN bylaws would indicate full parallel -and independence from ICANN for CSC

  Alan Greenberg: (15:39) @Steffan, don't understand. ALAC and GNSO in ICANN Bylaws and they are part of ICANN

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (15:39) @James: could also via the contract

  Avri Doria: (15:39) Maarten, exactly

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:40) Yup just a matter of where is sits best with regards to good governance practise

  Kurt Pritz: (15:40) Remember that the CSC is a community creation so a Bylaw change must take into account the communities ability to change the CSC later

  Kurt Pritz: (15:40) "communitiy's"

  Staffan Jonson: (15:41) Alan: I assume: The only reason for giving CSC a golden bylaw i ICANN must be to strengthen it from influence from ICANN, or?

  Alan Greenberg: (15:42) @Steffan. DIdn't see mention of a golden bylaw. 

  Staffan Jonson: (15:43) OK, your rright, however, Specifically protecting CSC Visavi ICANN board must be by a reason, or?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:44) +1 Alan

  Sabine Meyer: (15:44) not quite, I think. Golden bylaws are harder to change by the community (or the SO/ACs participating in the yet-to-be determined membership/designator structure)

  Avri Doria: (15:44) to say it is the bylaws says nothing about how it is written, where it is put, &c.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (15:44) In additiona to ICANN bylaws it could se referenced in IANA bylaws or in a contract re IANA

  Avri Doria: (15:44) Alan that is bylaws by inclusion?

  Alan Greenberg: (15:45) Not really. The GNSO operating procedures are referenced in the Bylaws but clearly not part of them.

  Staffan Jonson: (15:46) No, not financial/funding in more general terms. Isn't this a bit microminagement?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:47) If CSC is an ICANN construct it would be ICANN providiing any funding/secetariat

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (15:48) If CSC is an ICANN structure wouldn't funding and jurisdicial profile be covered by ICANN?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:50) Yeah I see that as an ICANN budget issue not a PTI buget issue

  Donna Austin, RySG: (15:51) That is the intention.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (15:51) that deliberations and output be transparent.

  Staffan Jonson: (15:51) +1 Donna

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (15:52) Re. notes:  DT-C & DT-M.

  Avri Doria: (15:53) When are we going to do IFR and SCWG.  including the stakeholder makeup of thise teams?  i do not see it to tomorrow's.  Or did I somehow miss it today?  (sorry for the out of band question, but wnated to get it typed in before the end of the meeting)

  Donna Austin, RySG: (15:53) The 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.

  Alan Greenberg: (15:56) Charter approval line not addressed.

  Greg Shatan: (15:57) "represented" is far too optimstic in the interpretation of our comments....

  Greg Shatan: (15:57) singly should be single.

  Avri Doria: (15:57) or atr IFR and SCWG the accountabilty mechanisms on tomorrow's list?

  Avri Doria: (15:58) ok, DTN is working on repsonses to the top level questions.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:58) When did we change the agenda of meeting 54 and 55?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (15:59) *53 and 54

  Sabine Meyer: (15:59) oh, yeah.

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:59) in the previous call @51 @James

  Avri Doria: (15:59) 3 am, i will be in rare shpae and ready for the world.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:00) @Grace Ahha thanks

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (16:00) It would be helpful if staff could cross reference the doc that it has had on screen today to the para numbers for the Review tool

  Greg Shatan: (16:00) My wife will think I am insane if I am on that 3 am call...

  Greg Shatan: (16:00) She may be right.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (16:00) Thanks everyone.

  Staffan Jonson: (16:00) Thank YOu all

  Greg Shatan: (16:00) Bye all.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (16:00) Bye

  Nathalie Coupet: (16:00) Bye

  Donna Austin, RySG: (16:00) On the CSC Charter, I think the initial approval is to come from this process, ie, it will be included in the transition proposal as agreed by the community. Moving forward there is provision for reveiw

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (16:00) thanks all

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (16:00) Thanks all.

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (16:00) bye

  Sabine Meyer: (16:00) thanks guys!

  Alan Greenberg: (16:00) Or go on to next meeting!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (16:00) bye all

  Avri Doria: (16:00) she does not already think so?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (16:00) bye all, and thanks

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (16:00) goodbye

  Lise Fuhr: (16:00) Bye all,