Proposed Agenda

•  DT-C CSC (Donna; Staffan)

•  DT-M (Chuck)

Notes

DT-C Customer Standing Committee

?       See also DT summary presentation as well as document shared by DT C

?       Customers of IANA would develop charter for CSC - would not come back to CWG. Could this work also be done by a Design Team as part of the CWG?

?       Reconciliation with other DTs will eventually need to happen

?       CSC needs to be in place after transition

?       Concern about lack of multi-stakeholder involvement - consider minimal MS representation in CSC. Should be open and          transparent. CSC is not the multi-stakeholder piece of the puzzle - primary function is customer related, with all proceedings
 being open.

?       What oversight is there of the CSC?

?       Who approves the charter? GNSO & ccNSO?

?       Should time-frames on SLEs for reporting be changed? To be aligned with DT a outcomes.

?       Indemnification for members appointed to CSC?

?       Concern about current organizational structure of IANA (within GDD) - to be considered as part of other discussions.

?       Who appoints CSC members? Idea is that these are selected by GNSO and ccNSO, but not necessarily limited to members of GNSO and ccNSO to also accommodate those that currently are not members.

?       Role / appointment of liaisons to be further considered

?       Consider IAB as another direct customer?

?       CSC does not have any decision-making actions - anything that would need to be decided would be filtered up to other parts.

?       Is Community Council as being developed by CCWG equivalent to the role that was originally foreseen for the MRT, which would form the multi-stakeholder component?

?       DT C and DT M to connect to clarify escalation mechanisms

DT-M Escalation

?       Chuck's team! Been working just around 1 week do far

?       Suggest that the group split their work into the day-to-day and the emergency response (this includes an operational   problem with key change that 'needs to be fixed yesterday' and systemic failure)

?       There is an emergency number that functions 24/7/365. It routes to the IANA officer of the day. There is usually a 4h response

?       As a group, CWG should keep close eye on where there are overlaps

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 2 26 March.doc

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 2 26 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6r7xg93gge/

The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-2-26mar15-en.mp3

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer:Welcome to Day 1 Session 2 of the CWG IANA Face to Face Meetings.

  Grace Abuhamad:reconvening now

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Caffiene supplys restored to nominal levels.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:getting there not there yet:-)

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):CCWG should not be picking up IANA failure accountability at any level.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):We may be able to use their mechanisms however.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:but it could/should ensure an accountible mechanism exists to react to failure to resolve after all remediation / escilation

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ergh typo

  Seun Ojedeji:@Greg i beg to disagree, if the ccwg isn't picking up IANA failure then who should? At the moment ICANN is the "IANA operator" and ccwg is looking to accountability of ICANN...shouldn't that include all aspect of ICANN accountability needs?

  Seun Ojedeji:okay i think Cheryl put its better....re: ccwg should put in place required mechanism

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):The CWG is responsible for operational accountability of IANA, not the CCWG.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):Seun: the CCWG picks up all related to ICANN's general accountability - and its tools might apply to specifics like IANA. But it is NOT the CCWG's job to design for accountabiliy of the IANA functions in an operational sense, and it isn't the CCWG's job to define the circumstances under which the IANA functions might be reassigned to a different operator.

  Chris Disspain:I don't understand why you need oversight of a customer committee

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):The customer committee surely is accountable to the customers

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):and has a limited and circumscribed role

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):it isn't meant to be the body where the multistakeholder oversight of IANA functions happens

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):it will be one ugly camel if it tries to do both of those things at the same time

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:Agree with Chris and Jordan

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):It needs to be accountable to more than just the other customers.  Tnere need to be checks and balances,

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):+1 Staffan

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I'm not surprised the customers are all agreeing with each other.

  Chris Disspain:isn't the point that once a problem cannot be solved by the customers it then moves over to the CCWG mechanisms which are truly multistakeholder

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):Greg: does that not entirely depend on what it is doing? isn't its role to give customer oversight of IANA operations?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Which proves my point.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):and we aren't approving ourselves - we would in the customer committee be overseeing our service provider (IANA)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):[I say "we" figuratively. I will never be on it.]

  Chris Disspain:exactly...the Community Council (or whatever) is the next step once the customers cannot handle the problem

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):No, it's role is oversight of the IANA operations.  Not merely customer oversight.  Where do you see non-customer oversight of IANA?

  Chris Disspain:and the Community Council IS multistakeholder

  Seun Ojedeji:@Jordan, i agree with the latter part of your comment (re: CWG designs requirements for transition to another operator), however for the former part of your statement, i think the cwg should design accountability requirements but mechnisms of implementation should be followed up by ccwg.

  Chris Disspain:Greg - I ask again - why do non-customers need to oversight IANA function?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):Seun: the CWG can port into our mechanisms

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):but it can't make us do work outside our charter

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):to oversee the *operations* of the IANA functions

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I don't think 1 or 2 multistakeholders are going to cripple the CSC.

  Chris Disspain:I don't think so either but why do they need to be there?

  Donna Austin, RySG:There will in all likelihood be liaisons from the community will be included in the CSC

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Greg, @Jordan - the idea is to be focussed on issues at technical level.  There is no intention of hiding what the CSC is doing with publication and rec 3's at least annual session

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):I don't mind liaison members either

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:And we did see the need for liaison / observer

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):my personal concern is that the CSC *not* be the multistakeholder piece of this puzzle.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):The issue with liaisons is that they are powerless.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:If escallation, wouldn't this need to be done via a proper consultation?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Jordan:  I agree fully!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):If fthe group is all customers, make sure to save a seat for antitrust counsel.

  Chris Disspain:@ Greg..and why do they need power in a customer committe?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):Greg - is there a piece of this docment that sets out more clearly than what's on the screen now the powers of this CSC, and the things it specifically does NOT do? (my apologies for being behind in the reading).

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Are there any non-customers that are agreeing with all the customers agreeing with each other?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):For the anti-trust point, is that a question that Sidely are looking at?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I believe so.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:But it should have an outreach role.  Organisation or mechanisms do need to see their role as outward and inclusive, not inward

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):It also needs to operate transparently, right?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Jordan:  yes - what I see as the outreach role.

  Chris Disspain:@ Greg..and why do they need power in a customer committe?

  Seun Ojedeji:"operational activities" currently taken by NTIA may be more broaden than what the CSC should handle.

  David Conrad:@Seun: in what way?

  Chris Disspain:I don't think it is useful to refer to them as 'officers' - it  implies some role with legal standing

  Sharon Flanagan:Re the antitrust question, if the purposes of the CSC is pro-competitive and does not serve as one of the improper "cartel" purposes, it is feasible.

  Seun Ojedeji:@David, reviewing the RZM change request is an operational activity of NTIA which i don't think should be left to CSC (personally i think it may not be required going forward)

  David Conrad:@Seun: thanks

  Holly Gregory:Agree that CSC members should not be referrred to as officers due to implication of legal obligations

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):That's about allocating the functions correctly, right, Seun?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):I have a question about #8 on screen about creating a charter for the CSC - is there a reason that shouldn't be done by a DT under the CWG framework, and be broader than just IANA customers?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree @alan

  Erick Iriarte:CSC members from cctlds will be elected or designated? in both cases by whom? why only 2, why not almost 1 from each region with balance of size, relation with ccnso, language, legal system, etc.)

  Mary Uduma:+1 Alan on traveling funding

  Seun Ojedeji:@Jordan, are you referring to my response to David or to you on accountability?

  Mary Uduma:Especially those from devloping countries.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Mary:  a cctld rep from a developing country should be funded by ccNSO?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Chuck: +1 on need to ad value

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:*add

  Mary Uduma:IWho will ccTLD and GTLDs who do not participate in the ICANN process be represented in the CSC.  Where a governemnt agency is the ccTLD Manager, would such Government agree to be reprsented by other jurisdiction?

  Mary Uduma:How*

  Chris Disspain:Jonathan...I've re-added myself tot eh queue because I dropped out of the room

  Grace Abuhamad:Queue is now closed

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Mary:  I'm not sure I see the problem.  The CSC is not representing your country/ccTLD/gTLD, but representing the customers

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:The government could flag issues to the csc

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:@Greg - The CSC wouldn't decide (ultiamtely) what happens with the IANA should the community to decide to move the functions, etc.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:or approach IANA directly

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):If the CSC is only representing the customers, it can't be the general oversight solution.

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:The Registrar SG has discussed the composition issue, and there was general agreement that Registrars would need to be included in the larger reviews, but that the day to day CSC activities were best handled by the direct customers. 

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Sarah, yes I said that.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Graeme, what were considered the "larger reviews"?

  Seun Ojedeji:@Greg CSC is not going to be performing full oversight, they are going to be providing data that would help inform the entire community to perform oversight

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Seun, where do you see that?

  Sarah Falvey - RySG:+1 to Seun

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):If the "broader community" has no body to perform that oversight, spewing data is not going to lead to oversight.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):Greg - can I throw back at you that point in a different way: I think the customers do want a structured way to engage with the IANA functions operator. That will improve the general situation because it will be openly structured and operated transparently. It would be better than the status quo.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):I don't think that shoudl be buried in the multistakeholder oversight of those IANA functions

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:@Greg from earlier disucssions it was the MRT, but we do need more clarity on what that would be

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):that's what is driving my desire for the CSC not being the "multistakeholder" bit of this puzzle.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Jordan, I don't disagree with that, but I don't think it has to be exclusively customers.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):I've already said I don't either.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):SO it's nice we are violently agreeing. :-)

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Does that mean I have to buy you a drink, too? :-)

  Seun Ojedeji:@Greg, that was the way i undertood it...so if it does not exist on the document then we should clearly write it there. Thats why we need a clear charter for CSC and perhaps oversight of CSC to keep them within  scope

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):No....

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Party pooper.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):For the record, -1 Chris. There has to be multistakeholder oversight of the IANA functions.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I agree absolutely with you *on this* @Chris

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):NOT related to the escalation process you have set out - I do think that that bit is as you have described.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Perhaps we need to use a "scotch egg" approach.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):......?

  Mary Uduma:@Martin agree with dealing with IANA directly. IT  makes a lot of sense to me in the case of ccTLD community .

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Hardboiled egg, wrapped in sausage, coated in bread crumbs and then fried.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):CSC = egg, MS oversight = sausage.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):I know what a scotch egg is....

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Jordan:  isn't there a multistakeholder bit - it's the ccNSO, the GNSO, the public forum or an open meeting in ICANN no?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):ahhh. I thought the official metaphor was Onion. ;)

  Alan Greenberg:I'll point out that having an ALAC Liaison to the CSC also gives the CSC a new escalation side-channel in that if the Liason sees a problem, the ALAC had the Bylaw mandate to advise the Board that it  (the Board) needs to take action.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):Martin: I don't agree.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Does that mean I need to buyf fyou a scotch egg?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:So CSC can't escalate without a full and open discussion

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):Greg: good luck finding one of those in IST.....

  Alan Greenberg:Board is obliged to address AC advice.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Jordan, the onion is a multilayered problem, where each layer makes you cry.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, participant):Martin - I don't agree that multistakeholder oversight of the IANA fucntions can be done by the operator of those functions. That's what I meant.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Well put greg

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Jordan - not what I was saying (or thought I was saying!)

  Mary Uduma:Thank you DT C and Donna.  Good job

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:I'd see it being best to use the existing multistakeholder routes as these are clearly established  and open.  I'm worried about new bodies who see their role as "doing" rahter than the more "lowly" job of enabling a discussion

  Chris Disspain:Allan...I think there would NOT be a requirement for regitries ot go to CSC

  Chris Disspain:I think they could go straight to IAP or arbitration

  Chris Disspain:their choice

  Allan MacGillivray:@Chris - I agree.

  Paul Kane:May be we need an SLE for escallation - NOT my group ... :-) 

  Mary Uduma:I think the SLA/SLE would specify the escallation

  Chris Disspain:I think Elise is saying 'what will be the escalation mechanisms after the CSC'.

  Chris Disspain:Hello...this is IANA...thank you for calling...your call is importnat to us...

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:Please hold.........

  Mary Uduma:IANA support desk. Right? Chris

  Chris Disspain:For name server changes press 1

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Please enter your IPv6 address and press #

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:If your TLD is inactive please press 0118 999 881 999 119 7253

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]:(Its an IT crowd joke from the TV series if anyone is totally lost by my comment

  Chris Disspain:have you tried turning your DNS server off and on again

  Mary Uduma:....lines are busy....try again latter....

  wolfgang:enjoy your lunch

  Seun Ojedeji:thanks...