Meeting #5 CWG RFP3 (19 December 2014)

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:  https://icann.box.com/shared/static/i94af8mwvhhslm3o5m6a.mp3

Documents Presented

MRT Functional Analysis 18Dec2014.pdf

MRT Functional Analysis 18Dec2014.docx

Chat Transcript

Grace Abuhamad:Welcome to the RFP3 call at 14:00 UTC

  Allan MacGillivray:Hello all.  I have no mic today, so I cannot speak.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Is this the correct Adobe Room? Very few people here!

  Grace Abuhamad:Correct room! But it's Friday

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:Jaap joined as well

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Hi all

  Greg Shatan:Good morning all.  Waiting for the dial-in operator....

  Seun Ojedeji:Hi all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:audio ok

  matthew shears:Hello and yes

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:Audio fine

  Allan MacGillivray:I acn hear perfectly.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I hear

  matthew shears:Thanks for all the ppers you have been circulating Greg - much appreciated

  matthew shears:gogle dox I should say

  Christopher Wilkinson:Audio fine, from wet and windy Wallonia! CW

  Seun Ojedeji:i lost audio

  Seun Ojedeji:can i be redialed?

  Grace Abuhamad:yes we are already redialing out to you

  Seun Ojedeji:I am sure i have missed something in Greg's response

  Seun Ojedeji:because i lost audio

  matthew shears:MRT has two way responsibility - towards constituency and to the global community

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:can wee say that and also can we recognise that they shoud also engage the wider community?

  Brenden Kuerbis:I largey agree with Martina about role of MRT. I liked MM's assessment on yesterday's call that the MRT reps largely serve a liaison role to the various communities that engage in policy making. IMO, the decisions they take should be guided by fairly explicit "rules" for determining compliance of the operator and defined process for selecting a new operator (if necessary). This would help prevent politicization of MRT.

  matthew shears:I think it could be made explicit Martin

  Avri Doria:never occured to me that decsions would be solo'ed.  perhaps the difference is ''reponsiblity to' and r'epsonsibiity for'

  Brenden Kuerbis:Q for Martin: Does that need to be acheived by having representation on the MRT, or can it be defined in their process?

  Avri Doria:of course there should wider community consultations.

  matthew shears:+ 1 Avri/Martin

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:doesn't it need both, Brenden?

  matthew shears:the issue then becomes whether or not reaching out to the broader community is the responsibility of the representatives of the ICANN communities or whether we need additional non-ICANN representation as well

  Brenden Kuerbis:Yes, just tryign to figure out where you draw the line on representation

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:good point, Seun:  the need for open processes

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Matthew:  yes, we need to find ways of reaching out to non-icann communities.  It would trouble me if these were not people generally accountable to "their" community, though

  Seun Ojedeji:hi lost it ;)

  matthew shears:we would have to decide what kind of decisions the MRT would decide to look to broader inputs on

  matthew shears:+ 1 Donna

  Seun Ojedeji:Yeah i think the charter of the MRT can make those distinctions

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:much or it can just be by reporting

  Seun Ojedeji:One other minnor thing i like to say though is that we may consider using another name for MRT as that name does not really reflect the role

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:But not the "momentus" stuff!

  Avri Doria:a rose by any other name &c.

  Seun Ojedeji:calling it MRT may continue to give impression of representation

  Christopher Wilkinson:what is the IANA budget.  How will it be allocated between the major functions? How will it be financed?

  Grace Abuhamad:@Christopher -- would  you like a dial out? Or for me to read your question out load

  Grace Abuhamad:loud*

  Christopher Wilkinson:Dialout NO, because the line is busy on family business.

  Grace Abuhamad:Ok, I can read your question out lous for you. That may help

  Christopher Wilkinson:I mean in the future post transition mode.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I'd say that escalation is surely momentus.  But performance review and issuing instructions are also. Budget is with those who pay.  Not sure I really know what the admin roles actually are!

  Avri Doria:the function operators is repsonsible for the budget, no matter who it is..  the budget is probably figured yearly or multi-yealry and should include support for the mrt, csc and contract functions.

  matthew shears:agree

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Sorry @ avri:  I think registries - as paymasters - would want and should have a say in the budget

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Budget discipline and all that

  Donna Austin, RySG:agree with Martin on budget, registries must have a say.

  Avri Doria:the registratnt are the source of all monies.

  Avri Doria:MRT shold be boring.

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At Large):sorry for my delay but still in the train

  Donna Austin, RySG:any new cost to the registry will be passed on to the registrant, so there is still a consequence. for brand registries there may not be 'registrants' so that previous supposition is no longer correct.

  Avri Doria:the brand owner is a business that is a registrant. just a business registrant on alarger scale.

  Avri Doria:the assumption most definately still holds.

  Christopher Wilkinson:But Registries DO have a say through the ICANN Board where they are well represented,

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Christopher, I disagree that registries are well represented on the ICANN Board.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Bart can you take note of the 2 points made about budget review and administration

  matthew shears:the second bullet assumes ICANN as the operator going forward  which may not always be the case

  Bart Boswinkel:@Seun will do

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I agree with publication. Regularly.

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay i think i need to write my point: The role of administrating IANA by MRT should be removed and also the board should be required to budget information

  Seun Ojedeji:The role of administrating IANA by MRT should be removed and also the board should be required to publish budget information

  Donna Austin, RySG:good point Martin

  Seun Ojedeji:Also what budget review means needs to be clarified

  matthew shears:@ Seun - what do you mean by adminstering?  The MRT is supposed to provide oversight

  maarten simon, SIDN:is this the place to discuss if we actually want a ' regular rebidding process'  as I am opposed to it.

  Avri Doria:i thought consultation on this was already a given.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Avri if that applies to the budget then fine

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:All - detailed written submissions would be greatinput to this

  maarten simon, SIDN:ok

  Avri Doria:from the iana functions operator.  just as this effort is being funded by the operator.

  Avri Doria:i took my and down, in hornring the pin stuck in the issue.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:but we fund icann

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Avri - my concern with your suggestion is 'independence'

  Avri Doria:... in honoring the pin ...

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:it isn't money from nowhere

  Avri Doria:yes, we do fund ICANN.

  Avri Doria:we, the registrants and the users.

  maarten simon, SIDN:should MRT name the board of Contract co and control the Contract co's administration etc. ?

  Avri Doria:and meet as rarely as possible.

  Donna Austin, RySG:we, registrants may, but there is an overall perception issue. I don't believe ICANN as the current IANA operator should be funding this effort. this is my personal view.

  Donna Austin, RySG:by this effort, I mean the MRT, as proposed.

  Avri Doria:in which case we disagree on this point..

  Avri Doria:i guess that is why there is a pin in it.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I'll say again:  it is launch a process

  matthew shears:In as much that ICANN is the contract operator I would have thought they should fund the MRT etc.

  Avri Doria:i beleive it is the CSC in the first iinstance.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Not an internal MRT action.  Calling the contract is a major decision

  Avri Doria:ie. the CSC should aalso have a policy implementaiton monitoring capabilty

  matthew shears:somewherer between CSC and MRT there needs to be some policy review mechanism that might escalate to the appeals mechanism

  Allan MacGillivray:On 'policy monitoring', you may have noticed in the recently posted NTIA deck that they require 'certification' from IANA that all processes and procedures have been followed.  I would suggest that we do the same post NTIA.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Chuck:  how does the IANA deal with policy implementation?  Isn't that done in ICANN?  Can IANA reject a delegation (for eg) of a new gtld that has just signed a contract with icann?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I'm struggling to understand the gtld process

  Sivasubramanian M:Comment: The CSC can have a place, just enough to observe or monitor the technical functions so as to ensure that the business operations are not affected by any gaps in IANA functions operation. But the CSC may not be defined as a body with a STANDALONE role in coordination or policy, both of which ought to be corss-community, read multistakeholder

  Seun Ojedeji:I presume Alan is calling it body in a group manner and not in a new entity manner

  Brenden Kuerbis:The Operator is bound by contract to implement decisions by recognized policy bodies. (e.g., delegation). I agree with Chuck, the policy making bodies (GNSO, ccNSO, etc.) are monitoring compliance. In the proposed RFP3 structure their recourse (if necessary) would be the IAP.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Martin. as you say, delegation for a new gTLD is done after a contract has been signed and receives a report that says x,y,z process has been followed, which includes pre-delegation testing of technical capability. IANA could not 'decide' not to delegate a new TLD

  Sivasubramanian M:Good to find solutions well within existing framework, perhaps with some minor restructuring; best to steer away from ideas of new entities, especially incorporated 'entities'

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 @SM

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Donna:  so no appeal for an IANA decision is needed?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:(And remembering the fun of .xxx, probably not a good idea?

  Chuck Gomes (guest):@ Martin.  Policy implementation is done in ICANN for GNSO developed policies.  Some requirements for IANA are IETF standards not  GNSO policy.

  Sivasubramanian M:+1 Alan

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Chuck:  so very limited grounds for appeal on the g side?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:And as Chuck says, cctlds are more difficult and I'm not sure who really would be able to assess!

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Martin, the .xxx decision in my mind was not an IANA issue it was a Board issue. The Board ultimately made the decision (notwithstanding all that went before it), IANA's role at the end of the day was to delegate the TLD.

  mary Uduma:@Sivasuabramanian +1

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:But NTIA might have decided against.  IANA in ICANN could not

  matthew shears:The MRT should be able to respond to concerns on policy related implementation by the IANA operator and whether or not they should be forwarded to the appeals mechanism

  Sivasubramanian M:@Mary Thanks. But was it a +1 on CSC comment?

  Donna Austin, RySG:NTIA might have, but as you say that is not IANA. So what you're talking about is the potential for NTIA to have not authorised the delegation of .xxx despite a request from IANA to do so.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I don't think so, Matthew!  Risk of "politicisation"

  Chuck Gomes (guest):I think we are treading on problematic ground if the MRT gets into policy.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Chuck+1

  Seun Ojedeji:yes @Mathew but we should ensure to exhaust the normal process of consultation before reaching out to MRT

  Donna Austin, RySG:I agree with Chuck

  Avri Doria:Chuck, not policy but policy implementation.

  Allan MacGillivray:@Chuck +1

  matthew shears:then how is a challenge to an IANA operator implementation dealt with?

  mary Uduma:On the issue of creating new entities rather work with existing ones.

  Seun Ojedeji:just the CSC is fine for that

  Brenden Kuerbis:Agree with Chuck

  Chuck Gomes (guest):@ Avri - As you know people have trouble differentiating between policy and policy implementation.

  Avri Doria:yes, but your WG is straightening that out.

  Chuck Gomes (guest):@ Avri - Correct!

  Chuck Gomes (guest):With regard to policy implementation, it would be essential that the MRT's role be very explicity spelled out so that there is not mission creep.

  Avri Doria:so the MRT would need srict constraints and the way to work-with or refer-to the correct  SO

  maarten simon, SIDN:@chuck: but how is the policy vs implementation discussion relevant with regard to IANA decisions ?

  Chuck Gomes (guest):Agree Avri.

  mary Uduma:I storng suggest we diffierentiate between policy and the policy inplementation. NTIA does not develop polices but monitoers policy implemtation by the IANA function operator. I think that slo will be the case in the new mechanism being deloped

  Chuck Gomes (guest):@ Maarten - In the case of gTLDs, the new gTLD policy defines what can be delegated.

  Sivasubramanian M:What we need is only an unincorporated body that would replace NTIA staff (tasked with IANA oversight), call it new oversight, get the IANA Contractor (at present ICANN) reaffirm that it would respect the covenant  with the new oversight

  Donna Austin, RySG:Agree on comparison of what MRT does v what CSC does.

  Chuck Gomes (guest):@ Maarten - In the case IDN ccTLDs, the ccNSO policy defined what could be implemented.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:why a site visit?  even if done, do we need to:  I'm not sure why!

  maarten simon, SIDN:@chuck: and it is a IANA or board decisision to delegate ?

  Chuck Gomes (guest):A board decision to delegrate a gTLD is not needed if the policy was followed.

  Avri Doria:i agree this could be a csc function.

  Chuck Gomes (guest):The IANA functions operator verifies that policy was followed.

  matthew shears:MRT and CSC should have nothing to do with policy - I agee - but in a situation where there is a challenge to the way in which the IANA operator has implemented a change how will that be dealt with

  Avri Doria:this = periodic sight visit of iana

  Allan MacGillivray:@Chuck - as well as 'verifying', they also 'certify' this as well.

  maarten simon, SIDN:ok, so there needs to be room for an appeal

  Chuck Gomes (guest):@ Matthew: IAP

  Avri Doria:the purpose of the review is to raise alrm.  csc is the alarm raiser

  Avri Doria:to raise alarm if necessary to raise alarm.  inspections sometimes show things paper reports miss.

  Sivasubramanian M:That CSC would be most qualified to do

  Grace Abuhamad:https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-17-en

  Grace Abuhamad:survey results here

  mary Uduma:@ site visit,

  Grace Abuhamad:Confirmation: Yes, NTIA schedules annual visits to the Los Angeles office. The next visit is schedule for Jan 2015.

  Chuck Gomes (guest):Shouldn't we minimize the duplication of efforts by the CSC & MRT, especially considering that the CSC would be transparent.

  matthew shears:@ Chuck - agree it is te IAP but how do issues get to the IAP?  Do they go through the MRT, directly, etc.  

  Avri Doria:not just no external oversight, no oversight at all.  even if the solution were the internal soltuion, the oversight would be necessary.

  Chuck Gomes (guest):@ Matthew - Registry operators and SOs should be able to file appeals to the IAP without going through the MRT. Otherwise there would be huge delays.

  Seun Ojedeji:Are we also reviewing these actions with aim of determining which action of NTIA may not be necessary going forward. However the nature of the accountability we introduce will determine that

  matthew shears:c.5.3 seems to be more the ambit of MRT

  mary Uduma:If members of CSC are not all resident in the  Location of IANA Function Operator as the NTIA is, how can this action be smoothly done? What will be Cost inplication of such visits?  

  Chuck Gomes (guest):@ Mary - NTIA is not located with IANA.

  Avri Doria:yep, if the US government is not to dund this then the function operator needs to.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Chuck its cheaper for NTIA to visit ;)

  Chuck Gomes (guest):Agree Seun.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@avri not sure why we need to do it full stop!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:NTIA might want to make sure it is still at the given address

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to @Martin

  Avri Doria:Martin, never know what the light of day will show.  Things should be seen periidically for verification that the paper gives a proper reflection.

  mary Uduma:Thanks Martain and Seun.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Technically similar to taking your car to the garage regularly or waiting for it to break

  Seun Ojedeji:sorry Avri, you mean going to see if hardware is in place will ensure things are going fine? I thought its easy to know if things are wrong remotely

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:i do not take car to the garage just to check out the garage

  matthew shears:Greg - thanks for the holistic view of the MRT composition options - very useful

  Avri Doria:one does far more when visit that looking at the HW.  ti see the operation.  it has the opportunity to talk to lots of people who never may travel.

  Avri Doria:it is an essential part of transarency!

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Having been site visited and having been responsible for performing these this is very little about looking at hardware

  matthew shears:Thanks all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:what happens if new operator has mulitple sites?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye

  Sivasubramanian M:Would Iike to see the MRT as composed of Expert MS participants with known commitment to the Internet, composed of people renowned and globally trusted

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:multiple visits

  maarten simon, SIDN:thanks Greg and bye all !

  mary Uduma:Greg, thanks for good and great work on the analysis.  Very very useful.

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:bye all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:thanks Greg and bye!

  Sivasubramanian M:Happy holidays. Bye

  mary Uduma:Bye all

  Brenden Kuerbis:bye, happy holidays all

  Seun Ojedeji:bye bye

  Allan MacGillivray:Thanks Geg and bye to all.

  Philip Corwin:Goodbye. All have a good weekend!

  Bart Boswinkel:Bye all

  Greg Shatan:Goodbye all and have a good weekend!