Meeting #1 CWG RFP 3B (14 January)

Notes and Action Items

1. Welcome and roll call

Adobe connect list as member present. No one on audio only

2. Background

Specific concerns around Contract Co. two submissions explicit alternate proposals ( ALAC and AUDA)

Purpose of Sub-working group

Develop alternate proposal to "Frankfurt Proposal"

Approach to task at hand 

Relationship to RFP 3

Convenient to use same terminology, however be mindful of evolution. Comment, MRT could be like a new Supporting Organization. IANA function to be overseen by similar committee like current Nominating Committee. 

Start with alternative for Contract Co.

Steve Crocker: 4 pieces to puzzle

1. What mechanism should be in place
2. lack of clarity around what IANA Function is.  IANA Function is clerical function. Not policy decision. Decision to make delegation or re-delegation is outside. This is tool to make 
3. lack of clarity of what separation. Decision to make what goes into root zone are made by ICANN, is it meaningful if clerical is outside 
4. what are criteria to make judgement of separation

Question what is minimal proposal to male this work

Interpretation of IANA Function Contract: (Intended) Clear separation between policy decision and clerical action 

Upstream decision should not be interpreted as IANA decision

Resistance to perception that IANA is operational. and what are for example new gTLDs is policy decision. Use IANA operational function as leverage of policy function. 

Policy development

• Judgement within policy
• Decision on Amazon or Vine are policy decision ( value decision). IANA process after decisions. 
• Independence from the Board: there should be some group that has unfettered access to function, alternate to NomCom, root signing process. Group could be CSC like. 
• Separation discussion is revisit of discussion 15 years ago. Signal for ICANN Board to look into calls for separation
• Need for clean and clear distinction between policy and execution/operation. Policy definition is blurred band blurs discussion. Start with clear definition of IANA Function.
• Focus discussion on ALAC and Auda proposal as starting point ( one variant)
• Comment Becky: IAP and other items are reflection of not getting at policy execution and not at operations on the other hand. Focusing on operations is starting point.
• Comment AG on ALAC proposal: need for more details are needed to meet requirement of RFP 3 required by ICG.  ALAC proposal principles far more important then details 

What should be focus of RFP 3B

• Greg Shatan, coordinator RFP 3: Focusing on alternate approach without Contract Co, may ultimately change way how MRT and CSC are viewed. By focusing on all directly would slow down process overall. 
• Suggestion is to focus first on alternate for Contract Co and contract. Short term viable discussion on alternate of Contract Co.
• Steve Crocker: Is focus on non-contracting co?  this will not address core of the problem

• Greg Shatan: start again with functional discussion. Structure follows function

• Start of functional analysis: After understanding what IAN Functions are: determine specific risks/issues.( what if IANA does not follow instruction) or does not perform well, then look for mitigating measures.

• The risks are in area of decision making area. The decisions should be out of IANA. After transition this should be clarified. 

• Background for agenda and proposal, based on comment and issues with raised in public comments focus on Contract Co. or go back ground work.

• Suggestion by taking out Contract Co. as mechanism problem can be redefined, and mitigating

• Duty to investigate all proposal and understanding ramifications of these proposals. Understanding benefits and down side, to inform the ccTLD and gTLD operators to make a reasoned decision. 

• Issue is where an by whom will be examination be done. RFP 4 should do stress test and understand ramifications. Purpose of RFP 3B is to build proposal that is build around alternative proposal RFP 3B. Functional analysis includes 3 aspects: clar about IANA Function , role of NTIA in relation to IAN Function and functional alternate to Contract Co

Proposal for functional analysis

- ICANN performs IANA function under contract, what is alternate?

Auda proposal

- Elements not to be addressed by this group (less relevant), such as CSC and MRT aspects, or rebid process.

Current naming function operation done well. Naming function, is narrow this focuses approach. Contract Co  approach is too broad. "Nuclear option", although causes may be highly unlikely they should be developed. Analogy and principle are similar to relation between Auda and Australian government. Suggested approach something like "golden bylaw" Definition of power

Singular difference: a single government overseeing. This difference should drive to a different type of solution. 

Resolve issue what is discussed in one group or another

If something goes wrong, first step is to have a discussion. Further if something goes really wrong, there will uproar and as a results in changes, next step is to secure  

No single government argument

Focus must be actual functions and incentive to make it work, and reduce the risk of capture to capturing it.

Need to define parameters the IANA Function needs to be performed and what will happen if not preformed adequately.

Need to take have a look functions again

Action Allan: look with staff at functional analysis to be presented to the group

 Specific reason for creation of this group: come up with a proposal without contract Co and contract. as alternative 

 Next call to accommodate those whose who are in Frankfurt

Transcript

Transcript RFP3B 14 Jan 2015 (3).doc

Transcript RFP3B 14 Jan 2015 (3).pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is not available for this call due to technical difficulties.

The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/ide3v4btu1mndq0a54gmp6qoqpm4bnjc.mp3

Documents Presented

RFP3b Jan 14 Meeting V2.pdf

Chat Transcript

Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):yes

  Allan MacGillivray:Grace - I am in AC and can hear you.

  Mary Uduma:I can hear you

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):Ah! Can hear OK. CW

  Greg Shatan:We haear you in Adobe connect

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:ok now

  Greg Shatan:*hear*

  Staffan Jonson:Can hear you

  Alan Greenberg:PLEASE MUTE MIKES IF NOT SPEAKING

  Sivasubramanian M:"The connect my audio" button in this room, accessed from the phone icon, pulls up an interface that gives two options including "listen only" whereas the cwg room with the same button showed a different interface with buttons that included  "access or deny  microphone accesss"  

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):Yes, but there is also the ICANN-internal option.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I support what lan is saying here

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Alan,  yes, it is not a MRT or ContractCo any more, but cross-community perhpaps

  Sivasubramanian M:A somewhat expanded "Internal to ICANN proposal" would be Cross-community + ISOC + IETF + IAB, perhaps W3C

  Staffan Jonson:Steve: YES thank You

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Steve   Would it be alright to consider it feasible  - as one of the alternate proposal possibilities - to inlcude all of IANA policy as part of ICANN policy , and reduce IANA operations to a 'dumb' function with no intelligence except to obey ICANN policy directives and implementation instructions?

  Sivasubramanian M:An IANA with zero policy capability and no freewill except that of ICANN...

  Grace Abuhamad:Christopher has joined the audio line

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:yes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:the 'something like a new SO ' model is well worth expolring as part of our work  IMO

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Indeed it would have many good qualities

  Becky Burr:Siva - I actually think that you are describing the current arrangement - it undertakes various operational roles consistent with ICANN policy on those issue

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:an "INSO"  noting the limitations  to Naming as the N

  Becky Burr:I don't agree with that either Christopher

  Becky Burr:Agree Steve - those are decisions for which ICANN must be accountable.  IANA irrelevant

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Agree Steve

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Becky,  If that describes the current arrangment, then it is perfect, it could continue with minimal, if any, alterations

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):Could someone please outline the auDA proposal?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Paul S   can you respond to CW's  request please...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Agree @Becky

  Paul Szyndler:@CLO - sure can

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Thx  @PaulS

  Sivasubramanian M:CSC by a different name could be a good idea, if the idea is to allow accesss to a wider group of 'customers' as one level of oversight, but only if, the CSC on its own does not have direct powers to alter the way IANA works.  Any issues noticed by this level of oversight would merit a fastlane access, or an ultra fast lane access to the Executive / Board / Community for solutions, urgent solutions where warranted

  Sivasubramanian M:urgent solutions where the need is urgent

  Steve Crocker:Siva has it EXACTLY correct.

  Sivasubramanian M:CSC could also be the INSO with a more than proportionate number of seats for customers,  but not like gNSO that makes policy

  Sivasubramanian M:Thank you Steve

  Steve Crocker:What's the "N" in "INSO"?

  Sivasubramanian M:Numbers

  Alan Greenberg:@CW - see attachment to http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/msg00038.html

  Sivasubramanian M:INSO could be constituted with different objectives and  coudl function with a different style, as distinct from gNSO

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:NO  @ Siva  it would have to be Names (or Names +)  from our works persepective  it (as a potential structure) probably analogous  with aspects of the Numbering CRISP  proposal of course

  Alan Greenberg:I have no problem doin what is proposed, but I think we will get back to the "CSC/MRT" discussion VERY quickly.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Happy to go that way @Alan  *at this stage*

  Greg Shatan:Alan, we should be so lucky.

  Sivasubramanian M:INSO has operational oversight role (at a certain level, not a high level),  and offers technical expertise, steps in with offeres for technical support, debates operational issues etc

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:NP Steve you are being helpful (to me at least)

  Becky Burr:+1 Steve

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I agree with Steve  here I think we will need to look a little holistically  with our work  but I am happy to START  with the limitations  proposed by @Allan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:YES  start with FUNCTIONAL  work *please*!!!

  Staffan Jonson:excellent. MRT, CSC etc. arel still merely functions, and not ready organizations!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and be open  to options

  Staffan Jonson:are all

  Sivasubramanian M:@ CLO Olivier's diagram talks of INSO as "IANA Names Supporting Organization" , I said "Numbers" to mean IANA

  Guru Acharya:@Greg: Did you mean functional analysis of IANA or functional analysis of NTIA in IANA?

  Guru Acharya:*NTIA's role in IANA

  Sivasubramanian M:@CW  Curious about what I half heard about what happened 15 years ago,  would like to know more of that history, for an understanding of history, to understand it in the risght perspective

  Greg Shatan:I really mean both.  We need to be on the same page with the IANA Functions, and with the functions that NTIA performs in connection with IANA.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and re @Edwardo's point  the recent work of the ccNSO's  FOI-WG needs to be considered as well

  Greg Shatan:We need a Venn diagram, with two non-intersecting circles....

  Greg Shatan:"Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law."

  Grace Abuhamad:Welcome Desiree and Paul

  Desiree Miloshevic:Thank you Grace

  Paul Kane:Thanks - sorry for being late - i was not aware of this call.

  Greg Shatan:Can't take Contract Co off the table without taking the contract with it.

  Becky Burr:Lots of folks are concerned about contract co, but for very very different reasons.  including because of all of the complexity associated with CSC, MRT and IAP etc.

  Alan Greenberg:@Greg, yes, the two go together.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Steve, I'm not sure that we should start with the idea that we take contract co off the table and we certainly should not be starting from scratch.

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Are we to assume that NTIA requires - REQUIRES - creation of new structures such as a ContractCo or MRT?  Does NTIA stipulate that the IANA functions have to be more elaborately organized? Such a perception is what probably prompted the proposal for ContractCo, MRT, etc...

  Becky Burr:But none of this work will matter until we reach consensus about what job the IANA functions team is supposed to be done

  Becky Burr:doing

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@Becky is it Consensus bout  OR  Understanding Of...

  Becky Burr:understanding

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Ahhh OK  ;-)

  Becky Burr:but shared understanding - which we really don't seem to have

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:that fits with my personal view

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:the referal to the recent SSAC outputs  helps here though

  Alan Greenberg:My understanding was that our scope is to look at the non-contract model, not to do the comparative study.

  Sivasubramanian M:The IANA operator - ICANN - no longer needs a contract.  What ICANN needs to do is to COMMIT to perform the functions efficiently, neutrally and in global public interest. We could emphatically point out to NTIA that there is no longer a contract to ICANN, so there is no need to invent an artificial external body to award a contract to ICANN;  AS for the contract to the IANA fucntions operator (backend) the contract could be from ICANN

  Sivasubramanian M:NonContract  = a numbers AoC

  Sivasubramanian M:And this AoC is to the Community, to the Internet

  Becky Burr:But we must have a mechanism to ensure that the IANA functions contractor actually performs the functions it commits to perform in an efficient and capable manner

  Becky Burr:and an ability to respond if it does not.  

  Donna Austin, RySG:contract co or not, in the short term I would like to have in place an agreement between an 'entity' and ICANN to do what Becky just said.

  Paul Kane:FMI -If 3b is NOT looking at Contract Co - which group IS looking at Contract Co?

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Becky  That mechanism would be the Accountability mechanism which could be strengthened to be a oversight body

  Becky Burr:in a contract, each party makes various commitments to the other, and each party receives certain rights if those commitments are not adhered to

  Sivasubramanian M:Levels of oversight

  Greg Shatan:@Paul: RFP3

  Paul Kane:Thanks

  Sivasubramanian M:Level 1  All customers come together to support the IANA operator in esnuring that the functions are performed efficiently and nueturally

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):The way Contract Co has been presented in RPF3 makes clear that they are talking about extracting the IANA function, not only from ICANN, but to transfer it to a particular Registry/ Registrar group.

  Greg Shatan:@CW, I honestly don't see that.

  Sivasubramanian M:a higher level is the Community - existing multistakeholder community reviewing the broader aspects of IANA functions management as a cross community house

  Becky Burr:@ Sivasubramanian - ok.  but ultimately you can't enforce competence

  Sivasubramanian M:A still higher level would be the expanded Accountability process / mechanism / perhpas even a structure

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Becky The idea is to build in competence and neutrality

  Sivasubramanian M:"enfforce" stems from a rule based approach,  rules can be obeyed and there could still be incompetence and irregularities...

  Allan MacGillivray:I lost sound

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Becky  Think of this as an exercise to build an eco-system

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):Lost sound. CW

  Grace Abuhamad:Working to resolve @Allan

  Sivasubramanian M:as an efficient, neutral and accountable eco-system

  Mary Uduma:No sound

  Allan MacGillivray:Greg - can you chair as I have lost sound.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:I think everyone has lost sound - Grace?

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):yes

  Jonathan Robinson:yes

  Mary Uduma:yes

  Staffan Jonson:Sound works via phone

  Grace Abuhamad:ok Please hold

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:yes AC connect & dial-up are disconnected channels now

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Alan we cannot hear you

  Grace Abuhamad:Redialing now

  Grace Abuhamad:Paul is on hold

  Sivasubramanian M:Do these audio troubles indicate some sort of technical interference?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:left ear in AC right ear on dial. works now.

  Donna Austin, RySG:I would note that IANA has not been tested in the new gTLD environment, and what I mean by that is that the number of TLDs in the root and requiring changes has increased considerably and will continue to do so.

  Allan MacGillivray:I am operional again.

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):yes, back in business

  Sivasubramanian M:in orther words, are these signs that someone tries to tune into adobe through the back door?

  Sivasubramanian M:@

  Alan Greenberg:@Siva. This conf facility has proven fragile in many ways. I would not presume any conspiracy theories related to failure.

  Grace Abuhamad:No conspiracy -- true technical difficulties that we are resolving as we speak. I am very sorry for the inconvenience this has caused.

  Sivasubramanian M:"conspiracy" is a big word, but it is a standard security related question.

  Paul Kane:Exactly Paul S - there is a formal document (legislation) to remove your contract to manage the Registry in the event of failure..... and rebid.  

  Becky Burr:yes, key is who has the power, under what circumstances, and how is it to be exercised

  Paul Kane:Yes Becky.  And that is what we need to clarify IMHO(

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):@auDA Thankyou Paul and CLO. I have just received a 5 page document. I shall revert in due course as necessary. CW

  Desiree Miloshevic:Agree wiht Paul K and Becky B: We need a mechanism in place, but it does not be have a shape of Contract Co

  Desiree Miloshevic:In my mind we need more a very light Trust legal form in place (very much like Auda's proposal) for the nuclear option, rather than a complex Contract Co

  Paul Kane:In Frankfurt the proposal was VERY simple/efficient - the work that has happened since has made matters complicated

  Desiree Miloshevic:Trust could be comprised of MRT members or CSC ++

  Paul Kane:IMRT and CSC may be the same (non-standing) organ

  Donna Austin, RySG:the contract NTIA holds over ICANN has meant that the IANA function has become more predictable and resulted in processes for new gTLD delegation.

  Paul Kane:Donna +1

  Becky Burr:this gets us right back to the policy vs. operations issue - we don't need so many bells and whistles if it is reliably operationally/technical focused

  Paul Kane:Becky +1

  Becky Burr:contract co could be very simple if we simply solved that problem

  Paul Szyndler:+1 to alan's comments on the audio

  Paul Kane:Yes - contract co or association could be very simple, limited scope/mandate

  Donna Austin, RySG:expectations of performance need to be explicitly stated as to consequences of non-performance. similiarly there needs to be a body to hold the IANA Functions Operator accountability and responsive to any poor performance.

  Donna Austin, RySG:'as do consequences'

  Avri Doria:I guess some of us want there to be an option other than the french revolution

  Eduardo Diaz:And the management iof IANA s what we need to understand how to correct if thisng go wrong.

  Paul Szyndler:Agreed Avri. That is why I used the example in .au. Doesnt matter that there is legislation backing our model....the principle of a fallback nuclear option is the same

  Avri Doria:but some of us might have the skills to start a revolution if necessary, but it is a bad thing to plan on.

  Avri Doria:having lived with MADd for years, i just do not think of it as a practical alternatives.  but i am waiting to see what 3b develops.

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):@Alan As I have already posted, in the event of 'failure', ICANN Board + GAC will have to intervene long before any 'insurrection'. CW

  Avri Doria:ii find it intersting that 3b is working on tearing down the entire Frankfurt framework as opposed to just replacing the contract co with a different mechansims.  and that it is being as a method of removing the multstakeghoolder option of MRT.

  Avri Doria:the inner revoltutionary in me is being inspired.

  Alan Greenberg:@CW, yes, they will intercede, and will likely succeed. But the nuclear option, or as the ALAC called it, the doomsday option, is what to do next if the prior actions have failed.

  Greg Shatan:@Avri, I don't think that is what 3b is doing (or what it should be doing).

  Avri Doria:Greg i agree with your normative statement

  Steve Crocker:brb

  Alan Greenberg:@avri, there is certainly no intent from the ALAC to remove the MS component.

  Avri Doria:Alan, it would have surprised me if it did.  but some on this call obviously have that intent.

  Guru Acharya:Maybe non-separability options can be developed in RFP3C

  Guru Acharya:*sarcasm

  Alan Greenberg:Avri, perhaps, but that is NOT likely to be an alternative that will be ratified by the chartering organizations (PARTS of them, yes) but not the wntire groups.

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):@Avri: I really have no brief for Frankfurt. I was not there and do not feel bound by the outcome. CW

  Avri Doria:on emtoion, i tink therre is very little in the postions peole are asseting, though sometimes people may express themselves with emoion. the two are different.  

  Steve Crocker:I'm back

  Avri Doria:Chires, i was onlty there on remote.  but i accepted the manstream postion that cam eout of there.  and am opne to hearing well formed alternatives.

  Avri Doria:apologies chris.

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):@Greg: My understanding is that CWG3b exists because the CWG surveys were not acceptable. No? CW

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Greg, nothing that has been done to date should be dismissed. the idea is to consider the merits of alternatives.

  Desiree Miloshevic:I'd like to point out results of the survey - where majority of respondents do not agree with the Contract Co as a solution

  Greg Shatan:No, it was created for the purpose I have stated.

  Greg Shatan:@Donna, I agree, and I think I've said that.... :-)

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Greg, I meant to say I agreed with you and it was what you said.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Even if we can meet in a time that coves ay a lunch break in the Frankfurt Agenda  that would help... But Grace  should have a handle on that

  Sivasubramanian M:Agree with Desiree on a light Trust platform.  Questions such as how do we ensure efficieny and how do we ensure compliance, how do we enforce bring up suggestions for a new process or new structure or a new committee as answer, More committees, more structures and more processes would lead to a contrary outcome from the one intended. We already have broad agreement of CSC by the same or different name,  there is some talk on an INSO,  and there is the accountability process to be redefined, beyond that if we go on adding processes, it would complicate the processes, lead to bottlenecks, or even conflicts within.  What we need to do is to work around the existing processes, strenthen and streamline processes with bare minimal new processes

  Sivasubramanian M:Thank you

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:night night

  Mary Uduma:Bye all

  Staffan Jonson:excellent Chairing Allan!

  Staffan Jonson:Bye!

  Christopher Wilkinson ('CW'):Good night everyone. CW

  maarten Simon, SIDN:Thanks Allan

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Bye

  Bart Boswinkel:Bye all

  Desiree Miloshevic:bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye all