Agenda

1. Opening Remarks 

2. Recap and tying up DT loose ends Day 1

3. DT-L (transition plan)

4. Priority 2 DTs

5. Implications of post-transition proposal  (Section IV)

6. Closing Remarks

Notes

1. Opening Remarks:

• Recap: focused on pulling together work of the group in the form of a draft proposal. Focus on work at hand - not opening new threads and avenues if at all possible. 
• Presentations of DTs - some open items identified that will be addressed in this meeting.
• Structural considerations - major focus for meetings #39 and #40. Objective to move to single variant.
• Dependency and linkage with CCWG needs to be in place - formulating additional details to be conveyed and identify dependencies in the proposal
• Today a total of 3 meetings
• Less than a week to produce a draft for public comment - convergence around DTs recommendations will assist in building the document. 

2. Recap and tying up DT loose ends Day 1

• Assumption that work of DTs is agreed apart from those open issues identified
• See document shared regarding DT open items

DT A

• Met yesterday with IANA staff and is working towards deadline to submit in time to review on Thursday's meeting.

DT C

• Does DT C accept the responsibilities implied in the table of reviews arising from DT-N? DT C to review this in further detail. Only two items that may require further thought (review of security audit report - CSC would currently only review 
  whether it took place and whether there were no reason for alarm; AZM audit report), other items look fine at first sight. 

Action item: DT N (Avri) to communicate to DT C what is being requested.

• What is the latest thinking of DT C with regards to the proposed role concerning escalation? No direct discussions yet based on yesterday's discussions, 
  but an email thread has started to better understand the number of escalations that could be anticipated based on current experience (information so far
   indicates that number of escalations are minimal). Updated view needed by close of Wednesday (15 April) to be discussed during Thursday's meeting. 
  Consider joint meeting between DT M, N and C to discuss and work out issues? Note, DT M did make a number of updates based on input of DT C prior 
  to submission of its recommendations to address concerns. DT C may want to review those in further details (CSC not a dispute resolution body but more 
  a facilitator/manager to ensure that issues get resolved). By avoiding complexity in the CSC, you may just be directing the complexity somewhere else if 
  another body would need to be created or get involved. Try to find a compromise between desire for minimal role of CSC and need for a manager / facilitator 
  for escalation. CSC is a function rather than an organization - objective to keep it simple and predictable. Escalation process in itself is a good structure but 
  will need an appropriate home.

Action item: Arrange 90 minute call between DT N, C and M to resolve outstanding issues in view of presenting recommendations by Thursday's meeting. 

DT O

• Updated budget information was received and has been shared with the mailing list

DT N

• Update recommendations to reflect that a periodic review of the IANA Function can be triggered 'on demand' - mechanism would also need to be 
  defined (how does that work). Section IV could be a place to deal with implications / triggers? Where would RFP related mechanism belong?

Action item: Avri to circulate proposed language to the list to determine where this may best fit.

• Clarify that the outcomes of a periodic review are not limited nor prescribed

DT L

• DT tasked to review clause C7.3 of the current contract: Transition to Successor Contractor – In the event the Government selects a successor contractor, the Contractor shall have a plan in place for transitioning each of the IANA functions 
  to ensure an orderly transition while maintaining continuity and security of operations. The plan shall be submitted to the COR eighteen (18) months 
  after date of contract award, reviewed annually, and updated as appropriate. DT L has reviewed existing plan in view of determining whether it is still 
  needed, and if so, should it continue in current format or modified form. DT recommends continuation, with modifications, of a transition framework 
  for the IANA functions should it be necessary for the IANA functions to be transitioned. DT recommends principles for the future evolution of the framework. 

Action item: DT L to  update recommendations to reflect that there should be substance to the commitment to develop this plan within 18 months

DT F

• Met yesterday and will meet again tomorrow. DT expects to provide recommendations in time for CWG meeting on Thursday (17.00 UTC). 
• Will provide two levels of recommendations - high level recommendations, but additional work will needs to be undertaken to document other processes in 
  which NTIA has been involved and will need to be replaced (e.g. DNSSEC). DT has identified some deficiencies in these processes which may be exacerbated 
  by the absence of NTIA - further work may need to be done pre- as well as post transition to address these gaps. Budget authority will be required to investigate 
  these issues.

Priority 2 DTs

• Chairs have reassessed priority two items
• DT G - Chairs recommend that this dealt with through dialogue with other communities as it is not limited to naming community. Should there be an IPR issue 
  that is naming specific, the CWG would obtain input from the legal advisors. Call has been scheduled with chairs of CRISP team to co-ordinate, not only on this issue but also broader conversations.
• DT H (.INT) - Chairs understand that this issue is being dealt with by the GAC - await GAC input. 
• DT I (competition policy & conflict of interest) - CWG chairs consider that this issue is adequately addressed by DT C. Furthermore, legal advisors have 
  provided input on antitrust matters. If needed, additional guidance could be sought from the legal advisors concerning best practices governance guidance. 
  No need for a DT.
• DT J (confidentiality & perception of conflict of interest) - CWG chairs consider that this issue is adequately addressed by DT C. Furthermore, legal advisors 
  have provided input on antitrust matters. If needed, additional guidance could be sought from the legal advisors concerning best practices governance 
  guidance. No need for a DT.
• DT K (OFAC) - issue is being dealt with by ICANN as a whole. Proposed language will be circulated that should cover this commitment. 

5. Implications of post-transition proposal  (Section IV)

• Dependent on structure - work that can be done in advance of those decisions has been limited.
• Draft proposed outline for section IV was circulated to the CWG as part of the latest proposal.
• CCWG has noted 2 additional stress test specifically relating to IANA aspects that will be added to the list.

Action item: CWG encouraged to provide input on proposed outline for section IV. 

Action item: Cheryl to send two additional stress tests to staff (complete)

AOB

• Financial analysis has been shared with CWG - breaks out IANA costs (not including capital costs). Analysis of all of the costs of the IANA services in the 
  FY15 budget. Figures would change depending on which model the CWG would go for, but it is not possible to predict those at this time. Support functions 
  allocation has been factored in - detailed list has been included as a separate attachment.  
• CCWG may benefit from further details, including rationale for certain recommendations. CWG to provide feedback in response to email sent by Mathieu - certain 
  clarifications may need to be made.

Action item: Grace to complete her Action from DT-O and provide transcripts to CWG

Closing remarks

• Next calls will focus on key questions for CWG: which variants of the models stand out, consider key issues that will need to be addressed

Action Items

Action item: DT N (Avri) to communicate to DT C what is being requested.

Action item: Arrange 90 minute call between DT N, C and M to resolve outstanding issues in view of presenting recommendations by Thursday's meeting. 

Action item: Avri to circulate proposed language to the list to determine where this may best fit.

Action item: DT L to  update recommendations to reflect that there should be substance to the commitment to develop this plan within 18 months

Action item: CWG encouraged to provide input on proposed outline for section IV. 

Action item: Cheryl to send two additional stress tests to staff (complete)

Action item: Grace to complete her Action from DT-O and provide transcripts to CWG

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #38 14 April.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #38 14 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3cxewuoexc/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-0700-14apr15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (4/14/2015 01:37) Hello and welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #38 on 14 April.

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (01:55) good morning all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (01:58) good morning

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (01:58) Hello.

  jorge cancio GAC (Switzerland): (02:00) good morning, all

  Allan MacGillivray: (02:00) Good morning all.

  Staffan Jonson: (02:00) Hi all (will be a little late in audio)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:00) Afternoon/evening Allan :-)

  Grace Abuhamad: (02:00) we will start in 2 min! :)

  Chris Disspain: (02:00) Greetings from a barmy 24 degree c afternoon in Melbourne

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:01) Cooler here in SYD  @Chris

  Andrew Sullivan: (02:01) And greetings from New England, where it is not snowing.

  Brenda Brewer: (02:01) Olivier Crepin-LeBlond is audio only at this time.

  Chris Disspain: (02:01) Well, it's not snowing here either Andrew :-)

  Chris Disspain: (02:01) hardly a claim to fame!

  Andrew Sullivan: (02:01) I figured as much.  But after this winter, it's almost astonishing it's not snowing

  Chris Disspain: (02:02) true

  Andrew Sullivan: (02:02) It snowed last week.  Yesterday was, I think, 17 or 18 °C

  Chris Disspain: (02:02) positively tropical

  Andrew Sullivan: (02:02) Exactly.  I cooked outdoors. 

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (02:03) good day

  Milton Mueller: (02:04) high intensiry

  Matthew Shears: (02:04) mornin"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:05) is the line with the banging / nois able to be muted?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (02:05) sounds like a steam machine

  Grace Abuhamad: (02:05) All -- there is construction in the building next to the Brussels office where the Chairs are speaking to you from

  Lise Fuhr: (02:05) No unfortunately is in our room someone is restoring the building

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:05) Ohh goodie  that WILL be fun :-(

  Avri Doria: (02:05) i thought the pounding was inside my head.

  Chris Disspain: (02:06) it is Avri

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (02:06) Oh Lord! You guys are going to go crazy in Brussels

  Chris Disspain: (02:06) a perfectly natural event in Brussels

  Grace Abuhamad: (02:06) We'll mute their line wherever we can. Apologies for the inconvenience.

  Avri Doria: (02:07) the problem with no new work threads is that we cannot fill gaps.  like the lask of RFP mechanism.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (02:07) crazy or remodeling/reconstruction Chris ;-)

  Chris Disspain: (02:07) I meant crazy but now you mention it

  Avri Doria: (02:07) ... the lack of RFP ...

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (02:11) I don't think we can do much with DT-A until we see the SLEs agreed to.

  Grace Abuhamad: (02:14) Staffan -- What about the proposed DT-N text?

  Staffan Jonson: (02:18) Chuck to me, yore very faint

  Chris Disspain: (02:22) maybe we could combie the 3 onto their own list rather than main list

  Chris Disspain: (02:22) main list is very busy anyway

  Grace Abuhamad: (02:23) more lists!

  Chris Disspain: (02:23) well, I was feeling a bit listless...

  Lise Fuhr: (02:27) @Chris a call between the three groups might be more effective

  Chris Disspain: (02:27) godd idea Lise

  Chris Disspain: (02:28) CSC should be for technical matter...policy sits in ccNSO o gnso

  Chris Disspain: (02:29) Chuck + 1

  Staffan Jonson: (02:30) Good idea!

  Chris Disspain: (02:31) At this stage if we have the CSC set up as the customer interface with IANA I'm not clear why we'd need something else to handle escalation but happy to discuss that on a focussed call of the 3 groups

  Avri Doria: (02:31) true, i think i feel hostile at this hour.

  Chris Disspain: (02:32) escalation of tech issues I mean

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (02:32) @ Chris:  There are some points in the escalation process where decisions need to be made and where coordination is needed.

  Chris Disspain: (02:33) agree Chuck

  Avri Doria: (02:34) on demand

  Chris Disspain: (02:35) you need to speak up a bit Avri

  Matthew Shears: (02:37) I agree with Avri that we do need to address the trigger mechanism(s) either in an existing DT or dare I say new one

  Chris Disspain: (02:38) we're talking about triggering a review right?

  Avri Doria: (02:40) RFP mechansims may have a bit of review as part of it, but it is more than that.

  Chris Disspain: (02:40) understood

  Avri Doria: (02:40) i will send the template  for DT-X RFP mechansim out shortly.

  Avri Doria: (02:41) sounds like someone making breakfast

  Chris Disspain: (02:41) don't mention food

  Avri Doria: (02:42) as i said, i do not care how it gets done. as long as it is.

  Avri Doria: (02:42) i just wrote it up in the template

  Milton Mueller: (02:43) yes

  Matthew Shears: (02:43) C.7.3 Transition to Successor Contractor – In the event the Government selects a successor contractor, the Contractor shall have a plan in place for transitioning each of the IANA functions to ensure an orderly transition while maintaining continuity and security of operations. The plan shall be submitted to the COR eighteen (18) months after date of contract award, reviewed annually, and updated as appropriate.

  Graeme Bunton  - RrSG: (02:44) It should be noted that Matthew stepped up in excellent fashion when  James had to take a break from the DT.

  Milton Mueller: (02:45) Is it possible to share the document iself, rather than someone's screen?

  Grace Abuhamad: (02:45) Milton -- this is a document that we put together for discussion and note-taking

  Milton Mueller: (02:45) and...?

  Grace Abuhamad: (02:45) The documents are in the Wiki reading list

  Milton Mueller: (02:45) ok

  Grace Abuhamad: (02:45) https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/O5TeBQ

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (02:51) Who would be responsible for developing the full transition plan in the 18 months?

  Chris Disspain: (02:52) it should be developed by IANA in conjunction with customers shouldnt it? IANA and the CSC maybe?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (02:53) Would a cross community WG work?

  Avri Doria: (02:54) isn't a DIDP being refused the norm?

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (02:55) Iyes agree this is important for ensuring continuity. Thanks Matthew and the DT-L team for focussing on  this.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (02:55) + 1 Mark

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (02:56) Can be contemplated in contract between ICANN and IANA (as it is in the NTIA contract)

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (02:57) This points to the importance of having a contract.

  Graeme Bunton  - RrSG: (02:57) I've nothing to add, Thanks Matthew

  Matthew Shears: (02:58) thanks!

  Graeme Bunton  - RrSG: (02:59) Could you bake a review of the transition plan into the 5 year review? Would ensure it's always current with operations

  Allan MacGillivray: (02:59) Thank you Matthew.  Well done.

  Matthew Shears: (02:59) a major review yes - the plan shuld be reviewed annually and nee to get this into the receomendations I thknk

  Chris Disspain: (03:02) speaking specifically about changes such as DNSSEC can we envsage any examples where it wouldnt sit within the policy function od the cs and gs?

  Avri Doria: (03:03) ie are for consulting in the room in th Brussels.

  Avri Doria: (03:03) the silences are probably for ...

  Jonathan Robinson: (03:04) @Avri. Or more waking up after an early start adn not always being able to multi-task as efficiently this early in the day!

  Chris Disspain: (03:05) thank you

  Andrew Sullivan: (03:05) ICANN has direct access to technical experts on these topics so that the relevant bodies could in fact get that expertise

  Andrew Sullivan: (03:06) Budget authority sounds different to me than expertise.  NTIA does not, AFAICT, have relevant technical expertise in the relevant areas.

  Grace Abuhamad: (03:07) 17:00 UTC on Thursday

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (03:07) nexs to me

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (03:07) news

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (03:08) when was this publicised?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (03:09) I had Friday listed but not Thursday

  Grace Abuhamad: (03:09) We announced the Thursday call as part of the schedule for the High Intensity. Brenda also sent calendar invites. It's also on the Wiki

  Grace Abuhamad: (03:12) this isthe letter to which the chairs are referring: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CRISP+Request+for+Communication+with+CWG-Stewardship

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:24) The lit in the draft  IS  OK  for Publication is in fact has 2 additional ST's  not previously identified by CCWG  ST-WP  as relating to CWG  but we have now adapted...

  Grace Abuhamad: (03:24) ok cheryl. can you send to me the 2 missing ones by email?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (03:25) Jonathan/Lise - I have a couple other topics I would like to raise before closing.

  Grace Abuhamad: (03:25) noted for chairs chuck

  Grace Abuhamad: (03:27) I'll upload the Budget documents to the Wiki

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:27) Not missing  from CWG POV at all...  I will draft a nte re this  sure...  but  basically Grace  CCWG  had not identified ST11 & 17 as being specific to CWG dependencies  but we have added them now  so the CWG list in Sec IV  is just fine

  Avri Doria: (03:27) 6.3 MUSD before capital?

  Avri Doria: (03:28) i would think the CapEx would also be a significant cost.

  Grace Abuhamad: (03:31) oh ok @cheryl. good! thank you for checking out section 4 :)

  Avri Doria: (03:32) do we have the cost growth curve for the last few years?

  Chris Disspain: (03:33) don't worry Chuck...it'll be early morning for you on the next call!

  Avri Doria: (03:33) for me this is but a dream in the midst of a night's sleep.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:33) lol

  Chris Disspain: (03:33) possibly a nightmare

  Grace Abuhamad: (03:34) I owe that action item to Chuck and DT-O

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (03:34) yes very good point Chuck -- we will need to read through those and we might need to cut/paste

  Grace Abuhamad: (03:34) Will do today after the last call

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (03:34) @Grace: thanks.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:35) yes  the exact terminology e used in answer to our questions as transcipt record wiuld be excellent

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (03:35) @Avri: no we do not have a cost growth curve

  Avri Doria: (03:36) a curve is one way to predict future costs.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (03:36) It's just a number & yes I agree Avri

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:36) tha data would need to be pulled manually as wellI believe

  Grace Abuhamad: (03:37) future costs will be different no matter what the transition involves.

  Avri Doria: (03:37) does this seem like something that needs to be fixed even in functional speration models to anyone else?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (03:37) for an estimate, they could look at each of the departments from which they pulled the data & see if there has been a significant growth in costs

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (03:38) My guestimate is I do not anticipate the costs of IANA growing significantly over the years - having not heard of any major investment or personnel changes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:39) I agree there @Chuck

  Avri Doria: (03:40) and IAP that is the the IRP?

  Avri Doria: (03:40) .... that is not the IRP

  Avri Doria: (03:41) i am confused on the IAP story.  but i can live with that.

  Chris Disspain: (03:41) the question is whether the gtlds want an IANA specific appeals mechanism and if so are they prepared to use the whole of ICANN appeals process or whether they need a special one

  Alan Greenberg: (03:41) @Olivier, think like implementation of DNSOSEC have implied very signifiicant developement costs. Not sure where they showwed up in the budgets.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (03:42) Thanks all.

  Seun Ojedeji: (03:42) bye

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (03:42) bye

  Staffan Jonson: (03:42) thank you all

  Andrew Sullivan: (03:42) Bye all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (03:42) thanks, bye for now

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (03:42) Thanks all bye