Attendees:

Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Elise Lindeberg, Erick Iriarte, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji, Staffan Jonson, Vika Mpisane (15)

Participants: Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Boyoung Kim, Chris Disspain, Christina Monti, Chuck Gomes, Desiree Miloshevic, Dwi Elfrida, Gary Hunt, James Gannon, Jan Scholte, Jordan Carter, Jorge Cancio, Konstantinos Komaitis, Leon Sanchez, Maarten Simon, Markus Kummer, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Mathieu Weill, Matthew Shears, Pedro Ivo Silva, Peter Van Roste, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana, Sarah Falvey, Stephanie Duchesneau, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter (28)

Staff: Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings, Berry Cobb, Theresa Swinehart, David Conrad, Alice Jansen, Adam Peake, Brenda Brewer, Bernard Turcotte, Cory Schruth, Mike Brennan, Jim Trengrove

Apologies: Jaap Akkerhuis, Robert Guerra

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**

Proposed Agenda:

Welcome & Rules of Engagement (Jonathan, Lise)
CCWG-Accountability Update (Leon, Thomas, Avri)
DT-A Service Level Expectations (Paul)

Notes

Welcome & Rules of Engagement

Please remember to state your names before speaking
Please refer to the design teams not only by their letter but also reference the topic considered
Orientation document prepared by Xplane has been distributed to all
Objective to produce a short form proposal - to contain highest level of substance, all other details to be moved to appendices. Following model of proposals from other communities to facilitate ICG's work. Representing consensus of the CWG. Consensus will likely require compromise.
F2F meeting - make significant progress in view of producing document for public comment shortly thereafter; review input provided by design teams, focusing on core recommendations and identify possible future work; complete list of any outstanding DTs; review and leverage CCWG work; mapping document circulated yesterday to potentially serve as a tool, not a direction.
When discussing issues, focus on what problem are we trying to solve for.
Presentations of DT follow logical order.
Please keep contributions to 2 minutes or less and avoid repeating points that have already been made.

CCWG-Accountability Update

See also powerpoint presentation
CCWG developed inventory of existing accountability mechanisms in Singapore and identified requirements for enhancing accountability. CCWG is now in the process of designing the solutions that will be stress tested. CCWG has identified 25 stress tests that will need to be met.
Key pillars are empowered community, board, principles in bylaws and independent appeal mechanisms. To enhance accountability, this would include possiblity for the community: to remove the board; block bylaw changes; return the budget for review and modification to meet the requirements of the community (including for example for the IANA function); approve fundamental bylaws. These powers to be excercised to a number of mechanisms incl. ATRT, IRP, Standing Community Committee, modifying corporate structure, community veto (these are currently work in progress and under consideration using a template approach to identify main components).
Continue to work with legal advisors
Objective to produce a first document for public comment before BA
IRP to be modified to include reviewing merits of the case and not only process. Community to have standing to initiate proceedings. Could include a panel that would specifically focus on IANA related issues.
CWG may wish to add additional contingencies that could be considered as part of the stress testing. In the stress test work, attempts are made to include the CWG questions that were submitted to the CCWG so it may be worth for the CWG to review these at some point.
CCWG also considering adding ATRT/AoC recommendations to Bylaws
IRP work is critical as it closely links to requirements of CWG - should be agile and effective.
CWG has strong interest in allocation in the budget to the IANA function - is both a requirement as well as a stress test. Is CWG satisfied that work of CCWG will meet the requirements of financial transparency and accountability in relation to the IANA function?
Mechanisms are intended to be used by agrieved parties when necessary, including the option for the community to hold the management responsible if needed.
CWG to consider mandating the level of detail that needs to be provided concerning the IANA budget. Veto would be ultimate recourse.
How is accountability for just the IANA part for its direct customers and what remedies do the direct customers have to address any issues? CCWG is looking at overall accountability, but is cognisant of requirements of CWG concerning IANA, for example auditing options that would review only IANA and use of IRP. Furthermore DT A and DT M should ensure that IANA is operationally accountable.
Accountability mechanisms should have an escalation path across the suite of accountability mehcanisms that is workable and properly 'graded'
DT to empower community to address and resolve the problems before escalation happens. Escalation is a sign of failure - issues should ideally be fixed before it gets to that point.

Action (Cheryl): CWG to review CCWG stress tests to ensure that these address questions previously raised and/or consider whether additional stress tests/requirements need to be included. Also consider how these relate to RFP 4 work.

Action: CWG to scope and specify the IANA budget requirements (as part of existing or possibly new DT)

DT-A Service Level Expectations

See also DT summary presentation as well as document shared by DT A
DT reviewed current SLEs/performance - IANA performing very well
Has DT A gone beyond its remit - shouldn't change how IANA currently operates, for example automation requirement. Automation should not hold up transition. Many processes are already automated - what is still missing? Desire from some registries for end to end automation (IANA API).
Consider removing response time of registries from SLEs
Penalties for non-performance are problematic. Ultimate accountability sanction should not impact the operation of IANA. DT has not been able to identify a penalty that makes sense.
DT recommending what IANA is actually doing today.
Also consider how to manage management and not only the board.
Are these targets or contractually binding arrangements? In the case of IANA, some parties may have contracts, others may not. SLEs should accomodate both - has same standing as SLA, but does not require a formal agreement between the two parties.

Action: Confirm that SLEs are realistic from IANA / Root Zone Maintainer perspective.

Action Items

Action (Cheryl): CWG to review CCWG stress tests to ensure that these address questions previously raised and/or consider whether additional stress tests/requirements need to be included. Also consider how these relate to RFP 4 work.

Action: CWG to scope and specify the IANA budget requirements (as part of existing or possibly new DT)

Action: Confirm that SLEs are realistic from IANA / Root Zone Maintainer perspective.

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 1 26 March.doc

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 1 26 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5gfhhl2vqb/

The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-1-26mar15-en.mp3

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:morning :-) :-) :-)

Brenda Brewer:Hello!

Brenda Brewer:Welcome to Day 1 Session 1 of the CWG IANA Face to Face Meetings.

Brenda Brewer:Hello Seun. We can hear you.

Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair:Good morning. There is silence on the audio bridge. Have you started?

Mary Uduma:Goodmorning All from Abuja. Preparing to cast my vote.

Mike Brennan:Good morning, we have not yet started. We should be doing so shortly.

Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair:Thanks, Mike!

Mike Brennan:No problem!

Grace Abuhamad:Is audio working for you in AC?

Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair:Audio is great on the audio bridge!

Mary Uduma:Yes I can hear you loud and clear

Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):Good morning folks

Grace Abuhamad:I'll post the link here

Grace Abuhamad:https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/aZHeBQ

Grace Abuhamad:All the documents on the reading list will be used today

Mary Uduma:Thanks Grace, the orientaaion document was very helpful as I read through the contents

Grace Abuhamad:Great! Thanks for the feedback @Mary

Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair:Lise's audio is breaking up...

Peter Van Roste - ccTLDs:Audio gone.

Grace Abuhamad:one moment we are fixing

Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair:Jonathan was fine. Maybe Lise can try to use Jonathan's mike

Staffan Jonson:Good morning all

Greg Shatan:Audio is fine in the room in Istanbul....

Mary Uduma:Better audio now

Brenda Brewer:Seun Ojedeji is on the audio line at this time.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Brenda - understood - thanks!

Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):Am in attendance here mainly to try and make sure the links between CWG and CCWG are strong

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Good morning eevryone

Grace Abuhamad:I synced the slides so that everyone can follow theslides in the room. I will unsync them when the presentation is over

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Grace -- good idea...

Mary Uduma:Ok Grace will it be posted online after the presentation?

Grace Abuhamad:yes Mary. I'll upload it ASAP and post the link

Mary Uduma:Great thanks@ Grace

Matthew Shears:the standing committee is but one of a number of options under review

Graeme Bunton - RrSG:This slide is a picture of a slide.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:next slide?

Grace Abuhamad:The slides are now unsynced

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:yes

Mary Uduma:yes

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:that would be an ideal outcome IMO... To blend I to a cohesive and articulate single set, the contingencies and associated Stress Testing that both CWG (from prev RFP-4 work) and that now well advanced from the Accountability work of the CCWG

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:absolutely agree @avri re ST's. etc.,

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree @chuck. the Review Process. ... an Agile and Effective one.... is essential

Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair:Providing us with the details on the budget you requie was an action item for your group from the Singapore meeting.

Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair:We are more than happy to include your requirements.

Chris Disspain:Good idea Thomas

Leon Sanchez:From the CCWG Charter: Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:exactly @avri this group has additional and specific requirements

Matthew Shears:have we recieved any futher IANA budget information following commitments by ICANN finance to make it available in Singapore?

Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):I won't make a verbal intervention but Greg's point is important - we know in CCWG that we need to have an escalation path across the suite of accountability mehcnaisms that is workable and properly "graded"

Matthew Shears:+ 1 Greg - if we have to escalate to spill the board it means that our other accountability measures will have - one might argue - failed OR that things are truly beyond repair

Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):We haven't done that design testing yet but we will, and it's also worth noting that the powers presented here are only a summary.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:well said @martin

Chris Disspain:I thought that Chuck's team were working on escalation mechanisms for IANA issues.

Leon Sanchez:Yes @Jordan, there's far more work behind what's being presented as summary and of course far more work to be done ahead

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Jordan, I consider escalations more than design testing, they are a need in and of themselves and much more likely to be used than the nuclear options.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yup DT-M does focus on that....

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:+1 Avris and to Chucks suggestion

Seun Ojedeji:is any of the ccwg/cwg supposed to be reviewing the budject substance directly? i thought those group are just to develop mechanisms....

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Escalation does not equal failure of our processes. It's not like "nuclear escalation." It's just a methodology for confronting an issue and then moving it up the ladder if the first level of engagement on an issue doesn't resolve the issue.

Seun Ojedeji:So if we will be revieiwng the 2016 budget just to identify things that can help improve on our proposal fine. However if its to directly challenge ICANN on the content of the budget...its a NO from me

Leon Sanchez:@Greg, remember the CCWG work is divided in WS1 and WS2. Escalation can be further developed in WS2 so far as the power is in place with WS1

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Leon, I don't think that's a good idea. The lower level powers are equally necessary and more likely to be used.

Matthew Shears:+ 1 Greg

Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Greg: I'd say it is if we have to go from iana into wider ICANN mechanisms: We should aim at resolving problems

Martin Boyle, Nominet:My concern is that escalation is a failure of customer-supplier relations

Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):I do want to assure people that we will be talking about the escalation paths between WS1 mechanisms as part of finalising WS1 proposals. That job of making sure the suite of powers is coherent won't be left to WS2.

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Martin, I agree with you -- which is we have our own "escalations."

Paul Kane:Martin +1

Paul Kane:Or is could be injection by IANA to impact the ccTLD Operations

Avri Doria (gnso-ncsg):Want to add that we discussd adding the WS2 commitments as a part of the bylaws results of WS1.

Martin Boyle, Nominet:Confusion of terminology? Could we introduce a "resolution" role?

Martin Boyle, Nominet:then escalation is to wider accountability

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Hopefully, the "usual contacts" can resolve issues, which is usually Level 0 of escalations. But if it doesn't you need to have a next level. Commercially, that might bring in the next managerial level on both sides, then executive level, then mediation, sometimes with cooling off periods in between.

Grace Abuhamad:All -- we will edit this document live as we progress through DTs. We will post the document after we go through theDTs and make the edits.

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I agree that if it gets to an IRP, then there is a significant failure of the lower level escalations.

Martin Boyle, Nominet:Next levels are still in the customers' role: finding out why the issue and planning a resolution with the supplier, making sure it is resourced

Martin Boyle, Nominet:When we escalate, it becomes something more - it is then about [become a?] systemic failure

Seun Ojedeji:do we have the slides somewhere online?

Matthew Shears:yes, Martin, and somethng that the functions should be isolated from

Marika Konings:@Seun - I'll share these now with the list

Seun Ojedeji:Great thanks @Marika

Grace Abuhamad:Please note that we are editing these live, so the version Marika will post is the v.1.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thx Grace

Seun Ojedeji:okay...noted @Grace

Martin Boyle, Nominet:@ Matthew - if it is part of a systemic problem that ICANN does not want to address, then escalation is appropriate and might be the only course. In most cases, it is a matter of addressing the tangible problem (resourcing, clarification on policy...).

Matthew Shears:agree

Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Good point Chuck

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):This is why we need escalations and remedies less severe than spilling the board.

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):General observation: we focus too much on the board and too little on management.

Matthew Shears:+ 1

Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):I would never support the community being able to spill the CEO.

Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):The CEO works for teh Board, they are accountable for the CEO.

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Would you spill the entire board if the CEO was the problem?

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):This is a hypothetical.

Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Jordan as well on Spilling the CEO

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:I think Gregs piint was around accountability of staff is expectations are not met.

Seun Ojedeji:the CEO is accountable to the board

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:*point

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@James -- correct.

Martin Boyle, Nominet:wouldn't the Board be expected to respond to big issues by firing the CEO or docking his bonus, before it gets anywhere near sacking the Board

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Martin -- I would certainly hope so.

Chris Disspain:I will say this when we get to talk about it but for clarity now, the equivalent to the community is members or shareholders and they DO NOT manage the staff - the Board manages the staff and the boadr is accountable to the members/shareholders...so, with respect, the escalation to the Board is precisiely the right way and having the community 'manage' the staff is precisely the wrong way.

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):We may need to work through the board, but staff performance issues aren't going to be solved by spilling the Board. You spill the Board if they can't fix the mgmt problem.

Matthew Shears:I thought the Board manages the CEO and the CEO manages the staff - if the Board is managing the staff there is an issue

Chris Disspain:@ Greg - you spill the Board if the Board doesn't solve the management problem

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes @matthew

Chris Disspain:and @Matthew - yes you are correct

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:as I understand it at least

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Are new response times *necessary* for the transition?

Chris Disspain:what you don't do is by-pass the Board

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Chris - I agree fully and actually just typed that before you did. So we are in violent agreement.

Chris Disspain:yay!

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I'll buy you a discounted drink for that.

Chris Disspain:hehe

Cheryl Langdon-Orr::-) :-) :-) :-)

Chris Disspain:I never drink discounted drinks!

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Hat tip to Cheryl for pointing out the drinks discount on the neck of each water bottle.

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):For you Chris, a full price drink, then. Top shelf, even.

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:@Chris I dont think the community wants to manage staff. But what the sharehoders want to know if how those staff are held responsible for managing SLE's without nessesarily going as far as spilling the board for redress.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and 20% off my refreshing cocktail on L34 after yesterday was appreciated..

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:And now I see the coversation with Chris and Greg that addressed my comment =)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:OK with both those changes fine by me....as AI's and for inclusion into PC DRAFT

Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Reality check, please.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Legally speaking how do SLEs compare with SLAs? If SLA breach there is legal standing for taking action. If SLE breach, is there legal standing too?

Seun Ojedeji:+1 to that comment as well....maintaining what is existing is important

Grace Abuhamad:*clapping in room*

Grace Abuhamad:Reconvening in 15min

Seun Ojedeji:okay

CWG on Stewardship Transition

Session 1: Welcome and update on CCWG-Accountability and DT-A

Analytics