Proposed Agenda: 

Review & Test Models (continued)

Notes

Overarching concerns that affect all models : 

• legacy of TLD contracting or not (diversity of community idea)
• Continuity of service (staffing) 

Review & test models (continued)

Focus: what are the objectives and constraints?

At the point of transition, the functions will be with ICANN and the job of this group and the CCWG-Acct is to ensure that we can be satisfied with that. Eventually, there needs to be possibility for separation if required. 

We are using the term "stewardship" interchangeably, but the term means different things depending on context (NTIA is steward for DNS)

Internal and external models are about how the separation of the names function is managed if needed. 

A stewardship problem is different than a competency problem

At some point, there is a need to discuss MRT and whether that is needed or not (for internal, ICANN may have the structure in place)

Comments from Sidley

There is a lot of work to be done to understand the models and the 'teeth' that their mechanisms may provide

Sidley is well positioned to help carve this out. Could do with 3, but is much harder. Would prefer fewer or a priority. 

Question to consider during the break

What are the fundamental issues that we are trying to solve for?

Are we or can we converge around a solution? Is there something around which we can converge?

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 7 27 March.doc

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 7 27 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4r9gk6vtmi/

The audio recording is available here:   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-3-27mar15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (3/27/2015 06:46) CWG IANA F2F Day 2 Session 7 will begin shortly.

  Presentation laptop: (07:01) Hi all -- we'll start soon

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:01) Fed and watered, people are coming back in now

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:01) ^^

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:09) Ok ready to go!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:10) The smokers are all in the room for the record=) Lets go!

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:11) From scratch please

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:12) I just sent the updated slides out to the mailing list

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:13) All, pulled together a summary of what I believe are benefits of Integrated model: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vF657f48o3n-zosS8PNyMAesgol-NdPH2Bg85WkpaNQ/edit?usp=sharing

  Milton Mueller: (07:14) not clear to me that Hybrid/Integrated model actually takes more to get started. Doesn't the internal model require a lot of bylaws changes and accountability enhancements?

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:14) Will send this to list as well

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:14) Thanks @Brenden

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:22) To prior point, you can limit the scope and activities dramatically in a n  affiliate

  Chris Disspain: (07:22) Jordan, spearation doesn't per se creat transparency - it is the reporting processes that do that, right?

  Avri Doria: (07:23) the idea is that the ICANN stakeholders (MRT?) picks the board of the PTI

  Guru Acharya: (07:23) +1

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:23) Thats the opt-in part of the model

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:24) Agree we shoul consult, but could it not be put in place without RIRs, IETF. That is one or more members

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:24) No, need the details of the contract(s)

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:25) Right,

  Jordan Carter: (07:29) I wonder if any of you have been through restructures of governance - but it definitely doesn't "maintain stability" - it can be less disruptive, but it's not plain sailing

  Jordan Carter: (07:30) I think the reason this one is getting more pros than cons is in part because it is something that's generally seen as desirable (cleaner separation of IANA operations) no matter where one sits on how to organise the stewardship part of how to decide who operates

  Jordan Carter: (07:31) (one of the reasons, sorry)

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:32) Yes, that is correct!

  Jordan Carter: (07:32) so it's good to do in some ways no matter what we do on the other bit

  Jordan Carter: (07:32) aside from the human and financial impact of restructuring, it's difficult to see a downside

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:32) Sorry, Jordan I was responding to comment in room from Sidley

  Jordan Carter: (07:33) ah! darn it

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:33) but yes I agree with your comemnt too

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:33) enthusiastically!

  Jordan Carter: (07:35) If it breaks (IANA operations), in this model, ICANN would be more likely to want to fold it back in, than contract it out

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:37) But getting clarity there woudl be overall good

  Jordan Carter: (07:37) I have a different question which doesn't relate to any model specifically... when do we ask questions like that, Jonathan / Lise?

  Matthew Shears: (07:38) continuity of funding model is a pro

  Jordan Carter: (07:40) Aren't there already separations of space, etc?

  Lise Fuhr: (07:40) @Jordan I will keep a place for it

  Matthew Shears: (07:41) I don't see that is a very weighty con Chris

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:42) "Isolation" works both ways, can provide clarity abotu reporting relationships, systems, etc.

  Chris Disspain: (07:42) Understood MAtthew but if we are weighting them then there are many things that could be said

  Erick Iriarte: (07:46) @grace the same comment please put in cons in the three models

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:47) If we are relying on the people and not the function then we have a larger problem

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:47) It's in the notes

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:47) Another reason for clear separation

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:47) the IANA staff should not be concerned with what ICANN thinks, they work for IANA

  Jordan Carter: (07:47) I think talking about people and skills is far too operational for our work here tbh

  Jordan Carter: (07:47) all of the models have to deliver competent execution

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:47) and shold be concerned with delivering IANA service

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:48) I would assume and hope that the current practise can surive the 'hit by a bus' risk management practise that contents can you keep functioning if staff meet an untimely demise.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (07:50) What is the brown/red? (or is it black)

  Milton Mueller: (07:51) sound falls out fintermittently or remote participants

  Milton Mueller: (07:51) ...for remote participants

  Guru Acharya: (07:51) +1 chuck

  Mike Brennan: (07:52) Milton can you please try re-connecting? I am hearing the audio fine through the Adobe room on my side.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:53) Can we stay away from colour coding for those of us without perfect color vision =) Notes on the side or something instead

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:54) James, you should join CCWG-Accessibility!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:54) =)

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:54) @James noted

  Lise Fuhr: (07:55) @james we will use bold

  Jordan Carter: (07:55) I don't think it's up to the NTIA to decide what we need or don't need, personally. They're a stakeholder at this stage.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:55) +1 Jordan

  Alan Greenberg: (07:56) @James: Italics?

  Jordan Carter: (07:56) They can't keep taking bites at the cherry, imposing new requirements, etc.

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:56) We've got a solve or James

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:56) for James

  Milton Mueller: (07:56) you have duplicated one of the cons here

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:57) Technical difficulties

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:57) fyi, the audio sometimes going in/out. seems better now

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:57) Fixing the AC room and realoading PPT

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:57) ok tnks

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:58) I broke it? @Grace

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:58) no audio

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:58) The room is quiet

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:00) audio in and out

  Jordan Carter: (08:01) Isn't that already a potential based on what is in the numbers and protocols proposals?

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:01) yes.

  Jordan Carter: (08:01) given that the decisionmaking is unlinked already - neither of their proposals has a dependency on asking the other groups if they are allowed to separate

  Matthew Shears: (08:02) you have "contract co was intended..." twice in the cons

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:02) this proposal simply creates an entity equivilant to RIRs, IETF in terms of contracting with ICANN to provide IANA functions

  Grace Abuhamad: (08:02) Thanks @Matt'

  Jordan Carter: (08:02) We can neither say that we should split the IANA functions, nor that the functions cannot be separated

  Matthew Shears: (08:02) + 1 Jordan

  Jordan Carter: (08:03) The stewardship is already split

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:03) Yes

  Matthew Shears: (08:03) yes

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:03) yes

  Matthew Shears: (08:04) I thought stewardship would be with MRT

  Jordan Carter: (08:04) it is - exercised through the Contract Co as the *instrument*

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:05) I dont really see it as a concern

  Milton Mueller: (08:06) Contract Co has no impact on the other communities. Full stop

  Avri Doria: (08:06) contract co is not quite the same as IETF as it only separates stewardship, whereas IETF has both policy and stewarship.

  Jordan Carter: (08:07) the stewardship role is not falling to ICANN -- it's being split across the customer groups. ICANN is the steward for names, in the Internal model. MRT/Contract co is the steward for names, in the External model

  Wale Bakare: (08:07) I think MRT to handle the stewardship and be integrated in both Contract Co or Integrated Model

  Jordan Carter: (08:07) MRT can even be integrated in the Internal model

  Guru Acharya: (08:08) +1 Jordan. I agree with your understanding.

  Matthew Shears: (08:08) we need an MRT in each model

  Wale Bakare: (08:10) * both contract co and integrated models i mean

  Milton Mueller: (08:13) well said Jordan. The term "stewardship" is confusing everyone. It's about the decision making power as to who provides the IANA functions

  Jordan Carter: (08:14) That is what NTIA used the S word for, and its what I have used the S word for since last March

  Matthew Shears: (08:14) + 1 Jordan/Milton

  Jordan Carter: (08:14) The point Greg has made is important, which is why we shouldn't be pulling things off the table today most likely

  Jordan Carter: (08:14) it's our first pass as the pros and cons

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:15) We've went from 7 to 3 models thats very good progress

  Jordan Carter: (08:15) it's brilliant progress

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:15) its about who and how the IANA functions is provided.

  Jordan Carter: (08:16) hey Grace, how about you rebalance the columns so you get a wider one on the right?

  Grace Abuhamad: (08:17) Good idea @Jordan. I was struggling

  Guru Acharya: (08:19) The "documentation" may not be enforceable.

  Milton Mueller: (08:21) Yes they are duplicate

  Milton Mueller: (08:21) Why are guesses about what the NTIA prefers a factor  in rhis list?

  Matthew Shears: (08:22) the accountbaility work that the CCWG is doing should not be model dependent - hopefully the work of the CCWG would be put in place regardless

  Guru Acharya: (08:22) Because the group feels that NTIA is a special stakeholder, which according to me a serious process concern.

  Jordan Carter: (08:22) it's the other way around Matthew - that in an internal model you might need to wat to know the full suite of accountabiliyy changes before the IANA accountability changes you need or don't need can be finalised

  Lise Fuhr: (08:22) @milton it is an open list of what the participants think is relevant

  Jordan Carter: (08:22) so that might slow things down

  Matthew Shears: (08:23) don't understand the pros that say that "it would guaratee ICANN's accountbility would  improve"

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:23) Me neither Matt, why does it guarentee anything?

  Jordan Carter: (08:23) that was my one - because it would demand that the broader accountability improvements couldn't be ducked by saying "don't worry about it, you have contract co instead"

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (08:23) @Matthew -- that seems like a wish rather than a guarantee!

  Milton Mueller: (08:23) @Lisa: those participants should argue on the merits, not use the NTIA as a proxy for their own views

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (08:24) @Jordan, I hope you are right.

  Milton Mueller: (08:24) Greg: Wishful thinking indeed

  Jordan Carter: (08:24) It's a prospective pro, it relies on the community demanding it

  Jordan Carter: (08:25) I don't think we can postpone either way

  Jordan Carter: (08:25) we have to decide how separation would happen, what the escalation path is, no matter whether the structure for deciding a separation sits with the ICANN bylaws or externally

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:25) Thanks Jordan, I dont know if thats worded right then without some explination on the slides

  Milton Mueller: (08:27) Chriss, this is such a crazy idea. An organizational that fails is charged with the responsibility for admitting that it has failed and finding a successor

  Jordan Carter: (08:27) I think that Chris has raised a fundamental problem

  Jordan Carter: (08:27) can we go back to the speaking list?

  Jordan Carter: (08:28) someone just forcibly lowered my hand

  Jordan Carter: (08:28) :P

  Matthew Shears: (08:28)  not sure I understand the "not having spin-off" in the pros and then mentions of the notion of separability in the cons

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:28) If its a fundamental problem it shoud be on slide

  Chris Disspain: (08:30) Matthew, which bullet?

  Matthew Shears: (08:30) Pros bullet 7 - cons bullets 1, 5

  Chris Disspain: (08:30) no idea what that means

  Chris Disspain: (08:30) on 7

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:31) And Grace my point about  continuity of staffing concerns  was missed aswell

  Grace Abuhamad: (08:31) It's an overall point so was put in the notes

  Grace Abuhamad: (08:32) Do you want an edit to notes @James

  Grace Abuhamad: (08:32) ?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:32) I disagreed where it currently says continutiy of service (Staffing) in my opinoin (And donaa please disagree) it should just read continuty of service

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:33) Everyone in the room liked that comment from Chris =)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:35) Lets not double guess the NTIA

  Matthew Shears: (08:35) Chris - the pros say that you cannot "spin off" in this model

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:35) It is rather odd to think that an organization that goes "belly up" is going to make a decision to give away the thing (registry) that makes its policy making activities relevant.

  Jordan Carter: (08:35) it's the words "sub-contracted" that made me wake up to this

  Chris Disspain: (08:36) understtod Matthew

  Chris Disspain: (08:36) will look

  Grace Abuhamad: (08:36) @Matt -- I think the difference is that the "spin off" is not required, but it could happen at some point

  Jordan Carter: (08:36) It is fundmaental, it's not a nuance

  Jordan Carter: (08:36) in one version, ICANN is steward forever, in the other version, stewadship can be transferred

  Chris Disspain: (08:37) Jordan, yes

  Paul Kane: (08:37) Stewardship needs to be transferrable in the event of failure

  Chris Disspain: (08:37) And that's what the Board spill and all; the other accoutbaility mechs are for

  Chris Disspain: (08:37) what is a failure of stewardship Paul?

  Guru Acharya: (08:38) In addition to the 4 principles mandated by NTIA, we seem to have an invisible 5th principle which mandates that the "The porposal should be politically feasible"

  Paul Kane: (08:38) No - Just the stewardship of IANA - not spill the ICANN Board

  Matthew Shears: (08:38) ONe might argue that all of these models are dependent on accountbaility enhancements - at the same one might argue that they are not - I don't see this as a con

  Chris Disspain: (08:38) Chuck - that's what the accountability mechs are for

  Jordan Carter: (08:38) In respect of the USG view through NTIA.... either this is a multistakeholder process to develop what the Internet community needs, and then we can negotiate, or we might as well ask Fiona and Larry to write the plan for us and stop being fig-leaves

  Milton Mueller: (08:38) Guru: political feasibility will take care of itself in the public comment period. We should propose what we think is best

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:38) +1 Jordan

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:39) +1 milton

  Matthew Shears: (08:39) Grace - accountabilty enhancments are in the cons col twice

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:39) Agree MM, what meets CWG objectives

  Jordan Carter: (08:39) The United States is trying to shape this in its interests - of course it is - but it's not a one way process, and surely our job is to develop the model we think our community needs

  Grace Abuhamad: (08:39) Thanks @Matt

  Guru Acharya: (08:39) Agree MM and JC

  Chris Disspain: (08:40) Jordan - my personal view is not fairly characerisable as the US shaping

  Jordan Carter: (08:40) no no

  Jordan Carter: (08:40) it's the references to what the NTIA would approve or not - their comments

  Jordan Carter: (08:40) whoever relayed them isn't really relevant

  Chris Disspain: (08:40) I have not relayed any us commetns today

  Jordan Carter: (08:40) I don't think you did, Chris - it was Chuck who dd

  Chris Disspain: (08:41) I did last week at CENTR

  Chris Disspain: (08:41) ah

  Chris Disspain: (08:41) ok

  Jordan Carter: (08:41) and its just repetition of what NTIA has said in public

  Jordan Carter: (08:41) i'm not talking about invisible ink or dark secrets ;)

  Matthew Shears: (08:42) + 1 Avri - doesn't make sense

  Jordan Carter: (08:42) they're talking about different types of contract

  Matthew Shears: (08:42) but if that's the case it is true of all - NTIA going away

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:42) Bullet completely wrong. ICANN would have contract with its subsidiary.

  Jordan Carter: (08:43) in the hybrid model you'd have a contract between ICANN and the IANA-thing to define what it needed to do

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:43) Right

  Jordan Carter: (08:43) different to the sort of contract a contract co would negotiate with ICANN to grant it the right to do the functions etc, presumably

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:43) yes

  Matthew Shears: (08:43) that bulet should go

  Chris Disspain: (08:44) I think it has

  Wale Bakare: (08:44) Voice in and out

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:45) I think strong IANA separation goes partly toward those concerns Greg.

  Jordan Carter: (08:45) From 7 to 3

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:46) As do strong SLAs developed and monitored by direct customers

  Jordan Carter: (08:46) that's a high rate of antiproductivity... or is it productivity?

  Matthew Shears: (08:46) I think this has been excellent process - but would be hesitant to take any off the table at this juncture

  Matthew Shears: (08:46) + 1 to Greg's comments

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:46) Agree with jordan its real progress to have made it this far in refinind the models

  Jordan Carter: (08:46) maybe our next steps are to develop more flesh on key components of the models and the bits that are cross-model (as the DTs have largely done)

  Jordan Carter: (08:47) there aren't many bits that are unique

  Milton Mueller: (08:47) Does anyone really support the internal model?

  Wale Bakare: (08:48) Voice in and out

  Milton Mueller: (08:48) Board recall does not address IANA performance

  Milton Mueller: (08:48) Indeed, board recall is more likely to be motivated by policy concerns

  Jordan Carter: (08:49) The answer to the lawyers is that the NTIA doesn't choose the model we present

  Milton Mueller: (08:49) NTIA has told us multiple times that it will accept any proposal within its 5 criteria that have public support

  Matthew Shears: (08:49) + 1 Jordn

  Jordan Carter: (08:49) If theywant to do that, they can write it for us too :-)

  Matthew Shears: (08:49) + 1 Milton

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:49) Yes the models eeds to be developed without regard to what we cannot know - ie the internal thinking of NTIA

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:50) They ahve given us written reqs work within them

  Jordan Carter: (08:50) NTIA can tell us what they are thinking, that's fine - but our job is to define what we need, not what they need

  Guru Acharya: (08:50) Maybe its the right time to discuss whether the members of the CWG are willing to take a vote between the three models as per the charter; if not vote, then at least the process for elimating some proposals by consensus. We might claim to have made progress by eliminating 4 proposals today, but each of those 4 proposals were very late proposals and not strong contendors anyway.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (08:51) Actually I was going to suggest a poll as well.  Not so formal as a vote.  More a sense of the room.

  Milton Mueller: (08:51) Seems to me if you are going to prioritize you should start with Hybrid, even though I personally would prioritize Contract Co

  Wale Bakare: (08:51) Agreed James. Not to rely much on input from NTIA

  Jordan Carter: (08:51) can we block out the bits that need to be developed that are common? Escalation path, specification of how it would look to separate, etc? those have to be done anyway

  Milton Mueller: (08:51) Because Hybrid model tries to reconcile internal and external

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (08:51) Milton, I tend to agree with you.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:51) Yes

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:51) Agree

  Desiree Miloshevic: (08:51) +1

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:52) see you all soon!

  Brenden Kuerbis: (08:52) Would like to see some thought around more teeth in hybrid model

  Wale Bakare: (08:52) Thanks Jonathan