Meeting #2 CWG RFP4 (28 November)

Notes & Action Items

Action Items Summary:

• ACTION: group to clarify question to be asked to IANA re: technical checks
• ACTION: Jaap and others to ask about technical checks within their circles/communities
• ACTION: Berry to prepare timeline of milestones based on RFP3 for the draft that will go out on Monday
• ACTION: all - comment on Steve Del Bianco's stress tests
• Volunteers for draft language to include in RFP4: Olivier Crepin-Leblond and Avri Doria
• ACTION: all -- add “questions to consider” for draft
• ACTION: ask full CWG when to reconvene. RFP4 wants to know when to reconvene to go over comments

ALL COMMENTS DUE BY SATURDAY 12:00 UTC (tomorrow for some)

Notes:

There was a call earlier this week (Tuesday).

Follow up on Action Items:

• Staff: reached out to IANA, but ICANN is closed for Thanksgiving holiday so no response yet
• Review of the document that was published on Wednesday, specifically RFP3 since RFP4 is dependent on RFP3.

Develop questions to accompany RFP4 for the community to address in Public Comment period.

Status of Cooperative Agreement: this is not in scope of the CWG. This is something the NTIA will address.

Question for IANA staff: technical checks

ACTION: group to clarify question to be asked to IANA

ACTION: Jaap and others to ask about technical checks within their circles/communities

The ICANN proposal has information about technical checks and contingency plans: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal

For point 2, group should read DSSA Final Report:  http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-final-08nov13-en.pdf

 ACTION: Include a timeline of milestones based on RFP3 for the draft that will go out on Monday (Berry Cobb will prepare one for group)

- use back-timing

Flowcharts will be included as an Annex in the draft.

List of potential threats/scenarios could be added to consideration for Point 4.

ACTION: all - comment on Steve Del Bianco's stress tests

Volunteers for draft language to include in RFP4: Olivier Crepin-Leblond and Avri Doria

Questions to Community:

1. Are there additional operational requirements that would be needed that are not in the current contract?

2. Implications of framework requirements (maybe to be included in RFP3 section of questions?)

ACTION: all -- add questions to consider

ALL COMMENTS DUE BY SATURDAY 12:00 UTC (tomorrow for some) 

ACTION: ask full CWG when to reconvene. RFP4 wants to know when to reconvene to go over comments

Transcript

The transcript is available here: MeetingRFP4_28Nov.doc

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9mdb5x67t6/

The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/s/5giucawhvgeqfor3yoz7

Chat Transcript

Marika Konings:Welcome to the RFP4 Sub-Group meeting of 28 November 2014

  Robert Guerra:hello all

  Martin Boyle, ccNSO:Hi Robert, hi all

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:Hi all, waiting for theadbie audio to connect...

  Allan MacGillivray:Happy Balck friday, all

  Robert Guerra:if Adobe connect auio is bad, please feel free to use one of the dial in numbers. Audio quality is better via dial in. you can also ask to be called if needed.

  staffan jonson:Hello all

  Avri Doria:is there a dial in number for mauritius

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Hi all

  Marika Konings:@Avri - I don't see one on the list, but we can set up a dial-out if you like.

  Avri Doria:it is ok, that would cost roaming

  Avri Doria:Desiree M. is sharing this AC with me.  So she is here as well.

  Marika Konings:sorry about that. How about dialing in via skype? I think you can dial the US toll free number without costs.

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:The adobe audio microphones don;t work at  all

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Staff can turn them on by the click of a button

  Grace Abuhamad:I will enable yours now Jaap

  Grace Abuhamad:enabled!

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:OK, Thanks!

  Sivasubramanian M:At present, NTIA engages ICANN for IANA functions and it is ICANN that has appointed verisign?

  Guru Acharya:Verisign's Cooperative Agreement with NTIA

  Sivasubramanian M:This direct relationship of Verisign with NTIA will go now.  Can it not be replaced with a cooperative agreement between icann and verisign?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):ICANN is not a party of the Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign.

  Grace Abuhamad:Which document are you referring to Jaap? Can you post a link here?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):The Cooperative Agreement involves much more than the RZM role.

  Sivasubramanian M:Is there a possibility that post transition, ICANN becomes a party? Directly by being the other party of the agreement with verisign?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I think you need to share the link again Jaap

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Chuck: so if the cooperative agreement contains such information do we need to rewrite it here?

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:I'll find the URL again. moment

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Thx  @ Jaap

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Olivier: Rewrite what?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Chuck: do we need to re-write the operational requirements to achieve continuity of service?

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:The URL is http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal

  Sivasubramanian M:If the community does not identify new operational requirements, or does not recommend any new requirements to be included immediately, then we may not haef to immediately rewrite the operational requirements?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree @OCL

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Olivier: I don't know that any operational requirements need to be written.  What is simply needed is that the RZM function continues without interruption.

  Avri Doria:if it is staying with ICANN at least for now what operational liabilty?

  Grace Abuhamad:Thanks @ Jaap

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Chuck: in which case, we proba bly do not need to go to great depths on this

  Berry Cobb:DSSA Group's Project Page.  Final Report can be found there.  http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2014/dssa

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Exactly @chucj

  Avri Doria:operatonal continuity is maintained at least until there is an RFP to replace.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Olivier: I think that is correct.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Berry, Thanks

  Avri Doria:and then it becomes an issue.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry typing oin the dark @Chuck

  Berry Cobb:Final Report: http://gnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-final-08nov13-en.pdf

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Thx @Berry

  Sivasubramanian M:For RZM function to continue without interuption, it is necessary to make the transition as a transition with minimal changes, except for the change in the name of the party that replaces NTIA

  Avri Doria:legal franework is the big issue.

  Guru Acharya:@Berry: Page not found

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Agree Greg

  Avri Doria:exactly, if RPF3 rovides a solution then that is the solution.  unless we ting the solution picked has its own liabilties.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Yup

  Sivasubramanian M:Some parts of this consultation exercise proceeds as if this were a compelte restructing exercise

  Avri Doria:for example if RFP3 is complex then maybe thee will be complexity issue based liabilties. but if it is a simple as NTIA, 1-2 adminstrators, it should be a piece of cake.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Yup

  Avri Doria:CLO, I like your answers

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr::-)

  Avri Doria:in terms of conitnuity, it remains the same, what's to test.  in terms of the legal framework, we will need to test against various scenrios of NTIA actions.

  Desiree Miloshevic:Agree with Avri here. We have to consider icann as the continuity scenario

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yup

  Desiree Miloshevic:and then there is nothing to new to test

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Yup ( again)

  Sivasubramanian M:Can we draw up a notional Organization Chart showing notional hierarchy of present arrangements, showing NTIA, IANA, ICANN and Verisign, each organization showing the number of people engaged on IANA functions?  The chart may not be accurate, but could give an at-a-glance view on present arrangement so as to enable us to make changes only to those areas that are necessary?

  Sivasubramanian M:hierarchy, relationship, legal arragements

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Siva - I think I have already seen this somewhere but cvannot remember where

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):@Berry, Guru: Try http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-final-08nov13-en.pdf

  Avri Doria:i think number is really the only one that needs a bit of work.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Sept 30

  Guru Acharya:@Greg: Thanks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:not Dec

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sep 2015

  Marika Konings:They will be included in the proposal that will be published for public comment (the flow charts)

  Marika Konings:as an Annex

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@MArika: excellent - then we can refer to them

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Olivier If there is one, we need to bring it as one of the reference documents, and if it can't be located or is not good enough, then draw up a chart and include it as one of the reference documents, not only in RFP4 but across the CCG

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Agree with back timing  method  =>  yes

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Greg: apologies I misunderstood the month Dev -> Sep 30

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Dec not Dev

  Avri Doria 2:Del Bianoc's test go beyond the needs of this exercise

  Sivasubramanian M:@Avri  Agree

  Avri Doria 2:well if we are going to go though each one it will become obvious

  Sivasubramanian M:Avri, you are being asked to speak

  Avri Doria 2:i can try to speak but i am in a noisy hotel lobby

  Avri Doria 2:for example he talk about ICANN going broke.

  Avri Doria 2:isn't the AOC issue one for the CCWG-Account?

  Grace Abuhamad:You all have scroll control

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I need to drop off

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye Chuck

  Avri Doria 2:noumber 4 is silly.  we are so far beyond technical mission now,

  Guru Acharya:@Avri: Stress test is to check the boundary conditions. ICANN going broke either as the policy authority or as the incumbent IANA operator would be a valid stress point to look at.

  Wale Bakare:Hi all

  Wale Bakare:Sorry for joining late

  Avri Doria 2:number 5, does NTIA have that pwoer now?  SSAC advise is just advice, it does not have the pwoer to command.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:will think on it - sorry no audio

  Avri Doria 2:numnr 6. GAC is just advice, the Board does not have to take it, has nothing to do with IANA

  Avri Doria 2:number 7, same as 6

  Robert Guerra:@bernard - ok

  Avri Doria 2:number 8, is a test thatt iana does now.  it would work the same.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and for #10 you would refer them to RFC1591

  Avri Doria 2:number 9, wont lawyers handle that as lawyers do.  n court with judges?

  Avri Doria 2:number 10, would not meet the iana criteria currently used.  the minsiter would be out of luck.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and dare I say the FOI WG report

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Yup

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:that was to @Avri

  Sivasubramanian M:And, no matter how many different scenarios are identified and discussed, if and when a real situation arises, it would be one that was completely unthought of

  Avri Doria 2:number 2 confuses me.

  Sivasubramanian M:Instead of an elaborate exercise of identifying numerous scenarios, we could rather focus on recommending continuous imporovements to the overall resiliency

  Wale Bakare:The nos 6, 7 and 10 Scenarios crucial to internet growth and openness especially in developing nations. How would CWG take those into the proposal?

  Sivasubramanian M:i.e focus on being thorough in design, focus on improving resilecy - overall resiliency

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:silence?

  Avri Doria 2:i think 3 may be something to think about

  Marika Konings:@Avri - your volume is very low

  Guru Acharya:Very clear now

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):@Siva, true but we still must try to list scope these out...

  Robert Guerra:avri - it is a bit difficult to understand you. audio fades in and out.  can you please repeat your comments in the text window. thank you.

  Avri Doria 2:oh dear sure thing

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:It was atready INTO the chat

  Desiree Miloshevic:+1 to Sivasubramanian - principles over details.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:we do cature the cht do we not??

  Avri Doria 2:thw only one with validoty is the financial one.  what if the iana functions goes broke.

  Desiree Miloshevic:+1 to Avri: re tests yes, some are reasonable, such as  improving communication paths

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):Maybe someone else can read Avri's existing comments in chat

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):In this morning's performance, the role of Avri Doria will be played by Cheryl Langdon-Orr

  Avri Doria 2:i can retype

  Guru Acharya:Avri Doria 2: Del Bianoc's test go beyond the needs of this exerciseAvri Doria 2: well if we are going to go though each one it will become obviousAvri Doria 2: i can try to speak but i am in a noisy hotel lobbyAvri Doria 2: for example he talk about ICANN going broke.Avri Doria 2: isn't the AOC issue one for the CCWG-Account?Avri Doria 2: noumber 4 is silly.  we are so far beyond technical mission now,Avri Doria 2: number 5, does NTIA have that pwoer now?  SSAC advise is just advice, it does not have the pwoer to command.Avri Doria 2: numnr 6. GAC is just advice, the Board does not have to take it, has nothing to do with IANAAvri Doria 2: number 7, same as 6Avri Doria 2: number 8, is a test thatt iana does now.  it would work the same.Avri Doria 2: number 9, wont lawyers handle that as lawyers do.  n court with judges?Avri Doria 2: number 10, would not meet the iana criteria currently used.  the minsiter would be out of luck.Avri Doria 2: number 2 confuses me.Avri Doria 2: i think 3 may be something to think

  Wale Bakare:The scenarios pin-pointed policy and security and stability wrt administration but the stress tests failed to account for technicality and operational aspects which is more important, i think

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):Sorry, meant to suggest reading them one at at time and seeing if theere was further discussion -- didn't mean to suggest reading them back into the record....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:seems like a list or chat exercise to me not a Read to the Record

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Indeed @Greg

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Dislogue  would have been useful

  Avri Doria 2:another one i spoke was the issue of who pays for the RFP if we decide to do one.  Asking the original contract holder to do so is a bit mean.  Perhaps any RFP should be self funding liek the new gTLDs were, in fact the NTIA replacements minght be come rich if they did that.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Dislogue = Dialogue

  Desiree Miloshevic:+1 on payment of RFP

  Avri Doria 2:i am sorry i have to be in a noisy lobby, i fly tonight and they did not let me keep my room.

  Desiree Miloshevic:the current contractor should not pay for someone else to take its job away

  Guru Acharya:Depends. Is the IANA operator funded by ICANN. We dont know yet.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed @Desiree

  Avri Doria 2:a cost recovery process for the iana function like new gTLDs, might be self funding for the entire process.  only half kidding.

  Wale Bakare:+1, @Guru. Can CWG inquire about that if we dont know?

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Desiree  There could be a very, very simple way of going through the iana oversight transition, to make sure that what runs well is unchanged.  1) Identify how many executives and staff members manage the oversight functions.  Let's say, it is Larry Strickling, Fiona Alexander and three support staff. 2) Find another Larry Strickling and another Fiona Alexander from some other country from a different stakeholder group and replicate NTIA.  3) For a limited period, invite NTIA to be an oberver, to make sure that the new committee / body / organization is given the required support if needed for the period immediately followign transition 4) Change nothing immediately, except for the NTIA name in the agreements 5) All the rest of the concerns are addressed by ICANN Accountability embracing IANA accountability

  Guru Acharya:@Wale: As in its not decided in RFP3 whether the IANA operator will be funded by ICANN if it is RFPed to someone else.

  Avri Doria 2:ie. it could 185KUSD to apply for the the priviledge of doing the IANA function for a zero dollar service.

  Sivasubramanian M:Such a simple approach could answer oliver's concerns

  Sivasubramanian M:about continuity, about Security and Stability

  Wale Bakare:@Guru, would that be uncessary to be in the known, should the entity become separated ?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:+++ to OCL onthis point

  Wale Bakare:@Guru, would that be unnecessary to be in the known, should the entity become separated ?

  Sivasubramanian M:Agree with CLO's observations

  Desiree Miloshevic:@Sivasubramanian - I  do not think we need to any of the suggestions you made

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Siva: your sugggestions will not fly since the US has explicitly said they will not allow transfer to a government led organisation

  Sivasubramanian M:No. no I am in no way suggesting people from government

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Geg: how can a Contract Co. be prevented from being used?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:ooops -- that completely came out wrong. My typing not good today. Start again. @Grag: how can Contract Co. be protected from being sued?

  Avri Doria 2:Olivier how would someone use it?  We have to stop seeing bad guys behind every idea.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Sue contract co.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Contract co holds all the contracts. Sue it & bring down the contracts

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:deprive it of all its resources by suing it

  Sivasubramanian M:When I said another Fiona Alexander from another stakehodler group from another country, I meant finding people with similar skill sets or similar stature - definitely from within the community, from another stakeholder group

  Sivasubramanian M:Just thinking aloud on a different model of thinking.  In summary it is 1) just refill the vaccum for now 2) cover everthing elese under icann accountablity

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 Martin! Yes!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):What is the cause of action that would give rise to the suit?

  Guru Acharya:Take any scenario: The ex-incumbent IANA operator files a case that the IANA contract was wrongfully terminated

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):I would look at indemnification to deal with this issue of responding to litigation.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):I'm a little full with RFP3, in terms of drafting but I am happy to review suggestions of others.  :-)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:sorry my browser crashed. I'll put a few scenarios down on paper

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:or on virtual "papaer"

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:as aoon as I can write without typos

  Avri Doria 2:i will try to write up my repsonse to the issues more clearly, with a lower typo to content level.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):Or is that "papier"?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):@Guru, can you write that one up? :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Did you mean RFP 3 not 4 earlier Robert?

  Grace Abuhamad:Thank you @Olivier and @Avri

  Yasuichi Kitamura:Now, I'm at my room. I was in the train but the connectivity was not stable.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:That is what I assumed

  Bart Boswinkel:As agreed yesterday it is Saturday 12 UTC to get coments into

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:corect

  Bart Boswinkel:the proposal for public comments

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:so that is less than aor lamost 24 hrs not 48

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):So, for North America that basically means today.

  Yasuichi Kitamura:tomorrow here in Japan.:-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Sat her already in the antipodeas ;-)

  Yasuichi Kitamura:Fortunately, Friday still.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr::-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye all...  Thanks Robert... Thanks all...

  Bart Boswinkel:Bye all

  Wale Bakare:Bye

  Sivasubramanian M:Bye Robert, Bye all.

  Allan MacGillivray:Thank you Robert

  Greg Shatan (GNSO):Thanks, Robert!  Bye all

  Robert Guerra:thanks all

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:bye all

  Martin Boyle, ccNSO:Thanks Robert & bye