Agenda

1. Opening Remarks

2. Design Teams

    a. Standardzation of DT content (abbreviated and full)

    b. Status Updates

    c. DT Content Q&A

3. Draft Proposal

    a. Schedule moving forward

    b. Members outreach 

4. Communications materials from Xplane

5. AOB

6. Closing Remarks

Notes

Notes 2/4:

Roll call based on AC attendance. On audio only: none

1. Opening Remarks

• • Primary purpose of call is to ensure that design teams are working as planned and are able to provide any updates as needed
  • Target date for content for draft proposal is 10 April
  • Producing two variants of proposal: short form proposal - more readily accessible and comprable to already submitted proposals; long form proposal including all the details. 
  • Call scheduled for 60 minutes
  • Communication materials have been sent out to the mailing list and an updated version of the handout will be circulated after this meeting.

2. Design Teams

• • Standardization of DT content: objective to standardise how DT content is provided to facilitate inclusion into the proposal. See Design Team M template as an example (to be circulated after the call). All DT encouraged to take a similar approach.
  • Status Updates: See DT Status Overview circulated prior to the meeting. 
  • DT A - still waiting for input from IANA staff. Informal feedback has been shared in which some concerns and questions have been expressed. CWG to consider how to deal with this. Staff to work with IANA staff to get formal response and encourage participation. What is a reasonable basis to go forward - are existing and/or proposed SLEs reasonable? Final proposal should include a mutually agreed set of SLEs, draft proposal could provide indication of desired SLEs. Any changes should be based on facts - current agreement may be outdated. Further improvements may also be made post-transition, and a process should be in place for that.
  • DT M covers root zone emergency process, although it currently does not include an SLE. DT A to consider whether there should be an SLE associated with this process, in consultation with IANA staff. 
  • DT B - no update. Survey response deadline is 3 April.
  • DT C - reviewing input received in Istanbul, need to connect with DT M concerning escalation, meeting scheduled for later this afternoon. 
  • DT D - Completed. Validation will be covered, now by another DT (possibly F) 
  • DT E - Completed. Output will feed into the Red Team.
  • DT F - Work on scoping document has been completed. Awaiting approval in order to move ahead. 
  • DT L - No further updates at this stage. DT is looking at a transition plan which is also required under the current contract. Disaster transition plan - if an emergency happens, how can business continuity be guaranteed. Is about the mechanics, not about whether separation is appropriate or not.
  • DT M - Continuing its work and aiming to complete its work by 10 April. What are triggers for escalation mechanism - is that being addressed? Yes, by DT M and DT C. Also expected to be covered as part of the legal advice so may need to be revisited after further input has been received. DT C and M to keep triggers in mind as part of their work. At some point it may move over to CCWG. 
  • DT N - Still working to the original plan and aims to complete its work by 10 April. 
  • DT O - Has met earlier this week and is aming to complete its work by 10 April.

Action item (DTs): DTs to review content template example and aim to provide their content in a similar format.

3. Draft Proposal

    a. Schedule moving forward

DT to deliver content by 10 April. Intensive working days on 13 and 14 April. Prepare draft for publication for public comment by 20 April. Call invites will 
be sent out shortly.

Action item (staff): publish schedule with call dates/times and milestones between now and Buenos Aires

    b. Members outreach 

Action item (CWG members): members to inform their respective SO/ACs and ensure that chartering organization are fully informed of the work of the CWG. 

4. Communications materials from Xplane

Materials provided by Xplane are aimed to facilitate members outreach to chartering organizations. Three documents have been circulated: handout (updated version will be circulated) summary of day 1 (DT discussion) and summary of day 2 (different models).  

Action item (all): everyone to review communication materials and provide feedback. 

5. AOB

Principles to be nearly complete - will be circulated for final review (please focus on those items that were still outstanding and do not reopen issues previously dealt with)

Action item (Lise): Principles to be circulated for final review.

CCWG would welcome further guidance concerning conditionality with work stream one. 

Chairs were interviewed by GAO - considered a routine update on CWG work. CCWG chairs are also to be interviewed and individual members have been approached as well.

Chairs will review priority 2 design teams and assess whether further work on those is still required. 

Client committee is meeting later today to ensure lawyers understand expectations and timeline. 

Action Items

Action item (DTs): DTs to review content template example and aim to provide their content in a similar format.

Action item (staff): publish schedule with call dates/times and milestones between now and Buenos Aires

Action item (CWG members): members to inform their respective SO/ACs and ensure that chartering organization are fully informed of work of CWG 

Action item (all): everyone to review communication materials and provide feedback. 

Action item (Lise): Principles to be circulated for final review.

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #33 2 April.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #33 2 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p788ggkxv5y/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-02apr15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

  Marika Konings: (4/2/2015 05:00) Welcome to meeting #33 of the CWG-Stewardship

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (05:58) Hi all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (05:59) good morning

  Allan MacGillivray: (05:59) Hello all.

  Andrew Sullivan: (06:00) Hi everyone.

  Brenda Brewer: (06:01) Cheryl is on audio only at this time

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:01) Noted. Thanks Brenda

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (06:01) No sound.

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:02) Can you hear me?

  Markus Kummer: (06:02) Sound works fine

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (06:02) yes. Grace. Can you hear me.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:02) In the AC  now thanks @Brenda :-)

  Staffan Jonson: (06:02) Hi all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:03) Hi

  Lise Fuhr: (06:03) Hello all

  Brenda Brewer: (06:04) Olivier Crepin Leblond is Audio only at this time

  jorge cancio GAC: (06:04) Hi all

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:04) Noted for @Olivier

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:05) @Brenda: thanks - I am now here on AC :-)

  Wale Bakare: (06:06) Hi all

  Greg Shatan: (06:06) I'm now in the AC room.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:08) when will the material for communications to the communetygo out on the list

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:08) @Elise -- I sent two doc out yesterday

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:09) ok :)

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:09) The "handouts" were sent last week, but they were updated last night. I'll circulate those after this call. 

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:09) So there are 3 documents total

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:11) ok - G

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:12) Grace  - will you send all three in one mail

  Avri Doria: (06:13) so that means if a group's output is a table, that table need  to be turned into text for the 'short' form?

  Avri Doria: (06:14) ok, it usually takes me a vew days to acclimate to a straightjacket, i am sure i will adjust.

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:15) :)

  Avri Doria: (06:15) ... a few days ...

  Staffan Jonson: (06:15) agree: Short proposal in main text, and details in appendix is the way, since last proposal was critiziced as 'too complex'

  Staffan Jonson: (06:15) Please talk closer to mic

  Marika Konings: (06:20) @Chuck - the root zone emergency process is also covered in DT M

  Marika Konings: (06:21) or are you referring to something else?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (06:21) Will work with DT-A to coordinate

  Paul Kane: (06:24) Yes - Agree Jonathan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:24) good

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (06:25) Paul lets touch base after this call

  Paul Kane: (06:25) Thanks Chuck - I will ask IANA and we will develop an SLE for Emergencies

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:31) NOTES  re DT-D     should read  "Validation will be covered, now by another DT (possibly F)    

  Marika Konings: (06:32) Done - thanks Cheryl

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:32) Thx @Marika

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:32) hard to hear

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (06:35) Thankyou @Paul. I shall review the Sidley material.

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:36) @CW -- the legal material is here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/pages/98471767/Client+Committee

  Greg Shatan: (06:36) I'm not sure I see validation as a "relationship" issue.

  Matthew Shears: (06:37) yes - thanks Jonathan -  business continuity is a better term

  Chuck Gomes: (06:39) One of the annexes for DT-M contains a table and flow chart because that is how the current service is described.  Annexes Y & Z do not use tables or flow charts.

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (06:39) Thankyou. @Matthew, Jaap. No further comments today. CW

  Avri Doria: (06:41) got it. just a differetiator. and that it had NOTHING to do  strucutre details.

  Greg Shatan: (06:41) Is the "why" of escalation and separation being covered in DT-M or somewhere else?  Or is that a gap in our plan?

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (06:41) My experience is tht if one builds a new bicycle, someone will want to ride it ...

  Alan Greenberg: (06:41) It's what pretty much every business SHOULD be doing and often doesn't.

  Avri Doria: (06:41) it could be the same people riding the old bicycle.

  Matthew Shears: (06:42) it is contingency planning that every business should have in place to ensure business continuiuty  in this case  the IANA service

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (06:43) Could someone please recap what is the Red Team. I missed out on that.

  Marika Konings: (06:45) Red Team: To examine whether there are any issues with respect to meeting NTIA's criteria, particularly with respect to security and stability and prevention of capture. This is a particular form of stress testing.

  Marika Konings: (06:45) It is basically section IV of the transition proposal.

  Chuck Gomes: (06:46) Whereas financial penalties would not work for IANA services, it might work to tie IANA staff bonuses (if any) to SLE performance.

  Greg Shatan: (06:46) I think that "triggers" probably over-arch several teams but aren't being covered by any of them.

  Paul Kane: (06:48) Interesting point Chuck.  I am not sure IANA staff will agree with that :-)

  Chuck Gomes: (06:48) Soine triggers are clear, i.e., fail to solve problem at one level causes escalation to the next level. Some are  decisions made by the CSC.  Others may still need more definition.  See DT-M work.  We will look at this further.

  Sivasubramanian M: (06:48) Greg:  Is it not covered comprehensively by M?

  Chuck Gomes: (06:49) That was supposed to be 'some triggers' instead of 'Soine'.

  Greg Shatan: (06:49) @Siva, no.  M is "how" not "why."

  Alan Greenberg: (06:51) One of M's possible outcomes include "   If IANA naming services problems cannot be solved at the CSC level, how and to whom should the problem be escalated?"

  Sivasubramanian M: (06:51) If there is something that overarch,  not adequately covered by one TEam or cut across the work of several design teams, then it could be handled by Red Team, which could start working now, without waiting for every other team to complete

  Chuck Gomes: (06:51) @ Greg: It seems to me that it is incomplete to cover escalation steps without providing the criteria.

  Alan Greenberg: (06:51) Also, separation might simply be triggered by an internal decison to divest itself of function

  Brenden Kuerbis: (06:52) And where/how are those triggers are captured. E.g. in a contract with IANA?

  Chuck Gomes: (06:53) Regarding separation, the trigger for that needs to be a M-S decision in my opinion.

  Lise Fuhr: (06:53) @Greg we need to have the DTs have the triggers in mind and to have the legal advice before we conclude

  Matthew Shears: (06:53) + 1 Chuck

  Greg Shatan: (06:56) Lise -- what type of legal advice are you looking for, as it relates to "triggers" (a/k/a "events of default" or "events of default")

  Brenden Kuerbis: (06:56) Can we look at the numbers and protocols proposals for suggestions on how to go about this?

  Greg Shatan: (06:57) I don't think this is an Accountability issue.

  Matthew Shears: (06:57) there may be triggers that we may not have thought about so far

  Greg Shatan: (06:58) @Brenden, a fair idea, but I don't expect that much detail.

  Paul Kane: (06:58) Yes - Agree Alan .  ICANN IANA staff may decide they don't want to do the job.  There are many organisations that could do it - but we don't go there!!  We all support the current IANA staff performing the tasks

  Lise Fuhr: (06:58) @Greg more to who we do the escalation and where to place the responsibility for the actual triggers

  Markus Kummer: (06:58) I have to jump on another call. Bye -- impressive work!

  Alan Greenberg: (06:58) Divestr of FUNCTION might well be just that and outsourcing is an approriate mechanism to move the function (not control over it) to some other body.

  Matthew Shears: (06:59) + 1 Lise and Alan

  Greg Shatan: (06:59) @Lise, I don't think those go to the issue of what the triggers are.

  Chuck Gomes: (07:00) I think it would  help to distribute a brief schedule of activities leading up to the start of the public comment period, i.e., day to day schedule.

  Paul Kane: (07:01) The Stewardship role in the Affiliated company  has that task.... and hope the affiliated company is not actually activated.  But it is there

  Paul Kane: (07:01) A

  Paul Kane: (07:02) Good slides

  Chuck Gomes: (07:02) The Xplane work on the Istanbul meetings seems way too busy to me to be very useful.

  Greg Shatan: (07:03) @Paul, I don't think we can assume adoption of that model.  As a matter of fact, I don't think that model is even on the table.

  Chuck Gomes: (07:03) The Xplane handout document seems useful to me.

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:06) I'll note that ALAC used these handouts yesterday on a call. I think they were useful to illustrate Olivier's update

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:06) Agreed

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (07:06) Jonathan   - Agree :)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:06) Yes they were

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (07:07) @AOB when do we discuss the other DTs?

  Greg Shatan: (07:10) GAO = General Accountability Office of the US Government. (formerly General Accounting Office)

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:10) Full disclosure: GAO also interviewed me, Marc Blanchet, and Leslie Daigle

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (07:10) The GAO has spoken to me too in Singapore - they have spoken to a lot of people

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:10) Yes

  Greg Shatan: (07:10) I feel neglected.  GAO has not contacted me.  :-(

  Matthew Shears: (07:10) CDT has met with them also

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:11) We attempted to stick pretty closely to the protocol parameters work, but questions relevant to this group were raised with us.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (07:11) if written input was provided to the GAO would it be possible to circulate?

  Allan MacGillivray: (07:11) It is expected that the US Congress will ask the GAO to provide a report on whether the final transition proposal meets the NTIAls conditions.

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:11) The others avoided talking about that at all because they haven't been attending these calls, but I was unable to say that, so I provided anodyne responses.

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:12) Each of us emphasised we were speaking for ourselves only

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (07:12) Questions I was asked were based on how the At-Large Community took part in the process of IANA Stewardship. How we related to our community, etc.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:12) @Andrew, That's inevitable, glad they see the need to ask about how proposals interface.

  Chuck Gomes: (07:12) Thanks to all.

  Staffan Jonson: (07:12) Thank You all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:12) bye all

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:12) bye

  Greg Shatan: (07:12) Goodbye, all.

  jorge cancio GAC: (07:12) thanks and bye

  Matthew Shears: (07:12) thanks

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (07:12) Bye

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (07:12) thanks everyone

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:12) bye, thanks

  Tomohiro Fujisaki: (07:13) bye!

  Sivasubramanian M: (07:13) bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:13) bye