Meeting #8 CWG RFP3 (2 January)

Proposed Agenda: 

1. Welcome and roll call

2. Review draft  survey statements

3. Review CSC Structural Analysis

Notes RFP 3 meeting 2 January 2015, 14.00 UTC

1. Welcome and Roll call

Mary Uduma not in Adobe, but on the call

2. Review draft survey statements

Additional points by Chuck Gomes and Milton Mueller, to be alluded, when point in document reached

• Introduction: Purpose, is to sense temperature of views of the CWG on public comments. NOT intended as any kind of call for consensus
• No comments on the introduction section
• Statements: Opinion sought on each of the statements from 5 possibilities. Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree or No Opinion. Explanation need to include , what middle ground means (can live with it)
• Input / discussion sought on methodology, not on statements themselves. Statement are derived from public comment input. This call intended is whether statement are comprehensible.
• Question: what is value of survey if differences in interpretations surface already at discussion of questions themselves.
• Include questions at the start to test the assumptions.
• Caution for internal validate and drawing conclusions from survey

Statement regarding the CSC

General comment: make a choice in using "could" or "should".

"Should", refers to aspirational state, "could" to possibility. Determines outcome/responses.

• Comment on Statement 1, Does it there will be no MRT, Response: agreement with comment
• Comment 2: procedural comment, go back to originating comment, to understand intention of remark. 
• Comment: in RFP 3 no closure on scope of CSC or MRT. This results in ambiguity and different interpretations of the statements. refer to definitions in draft proposal (baseline). Different answers based proposals. Goal is to seek opinion/preference of all individual members and participants of the CWG on statements.  
• Comments on Statement 2: Statement related to first statement. Include in introduction abbreviated definitions of CSC and MRT as baseline for reference of respondent.. Also include caution about interpretation. Maybe include section for open responses at end of each of the sections. However, this would make it different to analyse
• Note statement 2 and 3 are opposites and 4 is middle ground.Re-phrase nr 2 to make it more similar to 3 and 4. 
• Comments on Statement 3: No comments
• Comments on Statement 4: What does impacted parties mean? Suggestion to change "impacted parties" and clarify. Go back to drafter and/or originating comment (Google comment)
• Alternatively: change method, to "force" each respondent  to list parties to be included. Impacted parties bad expression. 
• Rewrite to refer to expert groups included in Google submission.
• Statement 5: Stress CSC is only monitoring, no further comments
• Statement 6: Variation of Statement 4.  Alternative interpretation, random selection of technical experts-> selction mechanism needed. Rewrite to make distinction with statement 4. If rewritten include follow-up statement/question who chooses. 
• Statement 7: Assumes CSC and MRT
• Statement 8: No comments
• Statement 9: No comments
• Statement 10: Comment, presumes the existence of the two functions ( CSC and MRT). .
• Statement 11: What does "addressing issues" mean in the context of this statement? Multiple interpretations, Assumption a third question..
• Statement 12: No Comments
• Statement 13: How to create standing, enforcement against CSC? This not about IAP, but look at CSC, to create standing for SCS with IAP
• Statement 14: no comments
• Statement 15: question needs to changed to take into account role of MRT
• Statement 16: no comments
• Statement 17:  there's an assumption in the question that they should deal with policy, and would escalate to the MRT if not able to resolve. Response: policy implementation to be interpreted as policy deviation.. However  Policy implementation is what is meant.
• Statement 18 and Statement 19: note for clarification, functions listed in these statement are listed as functions of MRT under Interim proposal. Repeating statements, in different format. need to be re-drafted. See also main comment to start with assumption.
• Restructure of questions

Statements regarding MRT

• Note these comments are taken form comments to date
• Statement 1: Assumption is MRT needs to convened/convener.
• Statement 2:  Assumes understanding of relationship and structure around IAAN/ASO/NRO and existing MoU. Note this statement is included as part of a submission. (ALAC). Dual proneness of relation between ICANN and ASO/NRO (NRO plays internal/external part) include this internal/external face of NRO in Statement.
• Statement 3 and Statement 4: no comment
• Statement 5: no comment
• Statement 6: no comment
• Statement 7: no comment
• Statement 8: no comment
• Statement 9: no comment on text itself, but raise additional points.
• Statement 10 and 11: pair related to 17 and 18. Comment on 10: MRT at exclusion of Contract Co? Response: Review draft, to reflect MRT will hold one of the dialogue. Comment 10 also relevant for statements 11, 17 and 18
• Statement 12: no comment
• Statement 13: no comment
• Statement 14: no comment
• Include following statement or variation of it:
• The composition on the MRT should be weighted toward greater representation by direct customers of the IANA Function (e.g. registry operators)?

ACTION: all Comments by participants RFP 3 until 2 January 21.00 UTC on RFP 3 

• Refer to survey statement. Send to RFP 3 email list
• Interim draft o list, before send to the full CWG
• Next call RFP 3, Monday 5 January 14.00 UTC

·  Call closed 16:05 UTC 

Transcript

RFP3 #8 Jan 02 Transcript.doc.

RFP3 #8 Jan 02 Transcript.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ifxdmmjv9/

The audio recording is available here:  https://icann.box.com/shared/static/4wk5ni7xu2xuucraemot.mp3

Documents Presented

Draf IANA CWG Poll Questions re CSC MRT for RFP3.pdf

Draf IANA CWG Poll Questions re CSC MRT for RFP3.docx

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer:Good Day Everyone!  Welcome to the RFP3 meeting of the CWG-Stewardship on Friday January 02, 2015 at 14:00 UTC.

  Lise Fuhr:Hi - I will join the first hour

  Gary Campbell:Hi all

  Greg Shatan:Good morning, afternoon and evening all!

  Gary Campbell:Happy New Year to you all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:hi all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello

  Avri Doria:my first icann mtg of the new year

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Hi all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Avri+1

  Allan MacGillivray:Hrello to everyone.  I trust that my audio is fine and tht nothing is happening as yet.

  Staffan:Hello all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:dial out please

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:the operator said they would call back 5 before top of the hour

  Brenda Brewer:Ok, we are calling you Cheryl

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thx

  Grace Abuhamad:You all have scroll control

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:in audio now....

  Avri Doria:whatever we call it, it will be treated as a poll as a vote.  i long ago gave up objectioing to these polls.

  Greg Shatan:Just lost audio

  Greg Shatan:Dialing back in

  Brenda Brewer:Greg

  Brenda Brewer:Greg's Line disconnected.  Please stand by while  he calls back in.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Would be better saying the MRT and CSC merged into the CSC?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Avri +1

  Brenden Kuerbis:Where available, should we not use the definitions provided in the draft proposal?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):MRT merged into CSC should be the FUNCTION of the MRT merged into the CSC

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Otherwise the CSC becomes MS

  Avri Doria:BTW, no opnion often means, at least for me, thaat i got caught in one of these ambiguities and thus could not have an opinion.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):(largely MS)

  Staffan:coming...

  Staffan:OK sorry

  Brenden Kuerbis:General comments: Agree it would be helpful to identify the specific comment(s) that are driving the statement(s).  Also, given possible ambiguities,  we should allow for supplemental responses in addition to the canned choices.

  Avri Doria:but Steffan's comment does bring up the need for a question on size.

  Brenden Kuerbis:Obviously, it is the additional debate about the nuances of the statement, merits of the supporting arguments that help us determine the best direction.

  Avri Doria:taking into acount the realization that size is relavice and i consider, personally, 27 as medium size.

  Avri Doria:..size is relative ..

  Gary Campbell:@Avri indeed size is relative

  Brenden Kuerbis:140 chracters limit ;-)

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:We are trying to get a rapid analysis for the following weekend - written comments would make this hard

  Avri Doria:Related to SURVEYSynonyms    interview, poll, solicit, canvass

  Avri Doria:from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/survey

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):But I *DO* wish I had a MOntreal bagel to go with the coffee!

  Berry Cobb:"Impacted Parties" came from Google comment.

  Berry Cobb:Because the CSC’s remit should be technical and it should have no role in setting or re-evaluating policy, its composition should be limited to direct customers of the IANA naming functions (gTLD and ccTLD operators) and related experts as that group sees fit. As a result, registry operators, as well as liaisons from the Security and Stability Committee (SSAC), the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the Internet Society (ISOC), the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) among others, could be invited to participate to ensure a seamless coordination among impacted parties of the IANA functions.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:That's a nice identification of a mid-way option membership

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I like Greg's "experts" approach for this

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Sorry

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):If you are goingto use the list, use them as EXAMPLES, since some (SSAC, ISOC for instance) are probably NOY impacted...

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):NOY=NOT

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Please mute if you are not talking

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Grace can you force mute

  Lise Fuhr:I have to leave the call, Happy New Year to all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye Lise.  same to you and yours

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:My point then is on who choses!

  Stephanie Duchesneau:i agree with Martin "should" is different than "could, as needed"

  Stephanie Duchesneau:and i dont think that distinction is clear enough for a closed-ended question

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Not POSSIBLE but ACCEPTABLE.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):In a past life, I discovered that potential members for a review committee either had a chip on their shoulder, or had no ability to assimilate the complex org. they were to review.

  Steve Crocker:Apoligies for joining belatedly.  In reading through the questions I find some are hard to answer because they include assumptions that I disagree with.  IMO, there is a useful role for an external group to monitor and report on the performance of the IAN function on behalf of the naming community.  There isn't a need for both a CSC and MRT.  These should be folded into one and limited to monitoring and reporting on the performance of the IANA function.  For example, question 15, is written "The CSC may develop IANA service levels without going through the MRT."  This implicitly asserts the existence of both a CSC and MRT, and hence I don't know how to answer my preference.

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):Later MRT statements  are there. The MRT at statement 7 won't be affected if the answers at the MRT statements are "disageree"?

  Stephanie Duchesneau:what does this refer to?

  Stephanie Duchesneau:a customer service function? being able to use an appeal mechanism?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:contionuous existence = standing committee?  Or once created its members are there "for ever" cf question 9

  Gary Campbell:Ho will the one third to be replaced determined?

  Gary Campbell:How*

  Avri Doria:proper survey design is a complicated matter.  Desigining a survery requires testing a survey. The proble with most amateur surveys is that they confuse more than they  clarify.  though sometime they are good vehicles for reinforcing a mainstream idea.

  Avri Doria:I had those course as well.  You must be cringing as you walk us through this.

  Steve Crocker:Let me suggest inclkuding questions at the beginning that test the assumptions.  That is, allow explicit response to whether the respondent agrees or disagrees with the basic assumptions.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Re Notes, my comment on 7 was the same as for 10.

  Avri Doria:that makes is more vote like.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Bart - my last comment was for you as note taker...

  Steve Crocker:Be careful about your expecations regarding quantitative analysis of the responses.  As Avri pointed out, design of surveys is not a trivial matter.  How will you determine that the set of responses is a valid representation of the appropriate set of people?  (And that's a trick question, of course, because it assumes there is agreement on what the apprpriate set of people actually is.)

  Brenden Kuerbis:General comment: No statements as to how an Independent Appeals Panel operates, e.g., who has standing?

  Allan MacGillivray:Perhpas we could say 'address individual service related issues dirrectly with the MRT or CSC

  Donna Austin, RySG:I think there should be an assumption that the customer will have a direct relationship with the IANA dept. rather than having that substituted by the CSC or MRT.

  Donna Austin, RySG:sorry, I think the assumption is:

  Avri Doria:They ma not be currently required to go to NTIA, but they certainly can and do.

  Stephanie Duchesneau:old hand

  Bart Boswinkel:@Alan, thank you

  Steve Crocker:Verisign is a very special case because they have multiple roles and hence multiple interfaces to the system. 

  Avri Doria:i am not a registry either.  i do know that NTIA talks to anyone who comes to them.  and i know lots of people do talk to them.

  Avri Doria:whether that talking has any effect is a different question.

  Steve Crocker:It's probably helpful to divide into gTLD registries (except for Verisign) and ccTLD registries.

  Steve Crocker:The root server operators are also customers of the naming service of IANA because they have entries in the root zone.  Do you want to identify them as a separate subclass and explicitly solicit responses from them?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):ok

  Staffan:15: Assuming that IANA service levels equals SLA:s:

  Steve Crocker:Another assumption that appears to be deeply embedded here is that the group that monitors and reports on the IANA performance also needs to have enforcement powers.  I would argue that its power to report is quite enough power.  There are already established avenues for remedy in the event there are specific or persistent issues with the performance of the IANA function.

  Avri Doria:leave in the dupicate and then test on it.

  Donna Austin, RySG:So there's an assumption in the question that they should deal with policy, and would escalate to the MRT if not able to resolve.

  Donna Austin, RySG:my comment relates to Q17

  Avri Doria:they are also the first to notice if a policy does not cover a situation at hand.

  Donna Austin, RySG:sorry I meant policy implementation.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Steve, that presumes the current org. In the CWG Contract Co version (which I do not personally support), there are not nec. extablished practices and paths.

  Steve Crocker:Where are policies developed, reviewed and chosen related to infrastructure, e.e.g adding IPv6 addresses for the root servers or signing the root zone?

  Steve Crocker:They do not currently have a home now!  This has been one of the weaknesses of the current arrangement.

  Steve Crocker:You misunderstand the IPv6 question.  It is absolutely a names issue.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Actaully, my understanding is that NTIA was not the origin, but was involved (in timing if nothing else).

  Steve Crocker:Alan, you may be surprised to learn the role of NTIA in preventing natural solutions to past issues.

  Guru Acharya:@Steve: Do suggest an answer as well. Where do you think the home for all these should be in the structure that we are discussing?

  Gary Campbell:#5 rather profound and obvious

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Q18 & 19 for CSC are so ambiguous I don't seen any value in them

  Steve Crocker:Guru, I don't think the structure being proposed is appropriate or necessary.  Discussing where to have the policy discussion and decisions related to the infrastructure is worth a separate discussions.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:because they are confusing

  Brenden Kuerbis:Developing root signing "policy" was run on an ad hoc basis, with NTIA running comment period. I'd suggest that ICANN should be running those processes through its policy making process.

  Avri Doria:do we have the "are convenors necessary" question?

  Stephanie Duchesneau:agree that these should be distinct questions

  Stephanie Duchesneau:could we simplify the questions to "registry representatives should be solely responsible for..." and "the community of stakeholders (GNSO, ALAC...) should be solely responsible)"

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Brenden +1

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Guru, if we were starting to consider IPv6 for DNSSEC now, a CCWG reporting back to the ccNSO and GNSO and then the ICANN Board to establish poa policy for IANA might well be a viable path, but it is not clear it is this CWG's job to answer.

  Avri Doria:Another problem with using conditional is that so many people do not understand how they work.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:it's like playing the old mastermind game, with the pegs of different colours

  Gary Campbell:Like Spephanie, I need clarity on the questions to "registry representatives should be solely responsible for..." and "the community of stakeholders (GNSO, ALAC...) should be solely

  Staffan:2: this one is difficut to understand

  Staffan:May delete it?

  Staffan:Maybe delet it?

  Brenden Kuerbis:I agree, I don't ike it either, totally underspecified. It's simply asking something again which was clearly refuted in the comments received.

  Staffan:The correspondence thought is valid.

  Staffan:Can't just contribute to a better formulation

  Donna Austin, RySG:not dissimilar to the regional ccTLDs

  Brenden Kuerbis:I need to go. Happy new year all.  Want to reiterate internal validity concerns, and caution against drawing conclusions from survey. Although I thnk the discussion it is creating is helpful.

  Alan Greenberg:I REALLY question whether this survey is (or can be today) sufficiently understandable as to presume that the answers will have real meaning. I can live with it going out, but those who may not agree with the conclusions sifted from it may have a ready argument against it.

  Stephanie Duchesneau:could we add another question about the weight of ccTLD/gTLD representation

  Stephanie Duchesneau:on the MRT that is

  Stephanie Duchesneau:"The composition on the MRT should be weighted toward greater representation by direct customers of the IANA Function (e.g. registry operators)? "

  Stephanie Duchesneau:drafted quickly, but there is a suggestion

  Stephanie Duchesneau:agree with you greg that a size-related question may be of value as well

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Alan:  how would the respondent know?

  Steve Crocker: You could ask respondents to estimate the level of effort.  give five ranges

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:it will depend on the job asked to do

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:But issueing a call for proposals and evaluation is massive

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Should we advise up until when we will look at comments posted by email?

  Avri Doria:would the size of effort be a descriptive or normative question?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:who will it go to?

  Donna Austin, RySG:I have to drop, thanks Greg

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye donna

  Grace Abuhamad:21:00 UTC

  Stephanie Duchesneau:can we get out a version that incorporates the changes from this call pretty quickly

  Stephanie Duchesneau:thanks :)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye all.   thanks everyone....

  Alan Greenberg:Happy new year all.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:happy new year - bye

  Staffan:Thank You all!

  Avri Doria:bye

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):bye

  Allan MacGillivray:bye all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Bye, thanks