Proposed Agenda

1. Opening Remarks

2. Open items on Draft Proposal

     a. To be resolved by Design Teams

     b. To be resolved by CWG

     c. To be resolved during Public Comment

3. Public Comment

     a. Structure 

     b. Associated Communications 

     c. Role of CWG Members

4. Timeline

5. AOB

6. Closing Remarks

Notes

1. Opening Remarks

• • Last call before the launch of the Public Comment on the 2nd Draft Proposal. 
  • We've converged on one proposal for structure 
  • Today, we'd like to conclude on the last DTs and the outstandings items. 
  • Need dependencies for CCWG-Accountability to be clarified and noted

2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4

The following three items are "aide-memoire" to help think through open issues and how to address them.    

     a. To be resolved by Design Teams?

     b. To be resolved by CWG?

     c. To be resolved during Public Comment?

Section III starts on page 17

• • Going through Sidley comments
  • Change review period text to "every 5 years"
  • Page 22, section on IANA Function Review -- help with language from Sidley
  • Page 17, "ICANN to continue as IFO" -- help with language from Sidley
  • For DT-A, placeholder text needed because the DT is not complete: capture that significant work has been done to date, but not all are agreed. --> suggest general statement instead 

Action (Alan): provide the text for point 4 (after CCWG-Acct meeting)

Action (Staff): do a thorough copyedit

Action (Sidley): propose language for Section III and Annex L

3. Public Comment

     a. Structure 

• • As discussed in Istanbul, staff prepared a template for the comments to be submitted. 
  • The template will be presented in Word and PDF formats (the PDF will be fillable)
  • Use of the template will be strongly encouraged, but not absolutely obligatory (free form comments are also accepted)
  • The reason for using a template is to get concrete feedback and also to faciliate analysis and incorporation of feedback 
  • The template and the Proposal will be published in all ICANN supported languages

     b. Associated Communications 

• • There will be a Chairs' Foreword/Summary
  • There will be an updated version of the Xplane Handout presented in Istanbul
  • The idea behind the two documents is that they each provide background and narrative on the CWG work process: the foreword/summary does this in a text form, and the XPlane handout provides a visual form. 

     c. Role of CWG Members

Please make sure that CWG Members ensure that their communities are aware of the comments, the suggested format, and the timeframe for comments. 

4. Timeline

Will publish timeline to the list to save for time. 

5. AOB

6. Closing Remarks

Action Items

Action (Alan): provide the text for point 4 (after CCWG-Acct meeting)

Action (Staff): do a thorough copyedit

Action (Sidley): propose language for Section III and Annex L

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #42 21 April.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #42 21 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2tsbs6nsex/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-21apr15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (4/21/2015 11:52) Welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #42 on 21 April.

  Andrew Sullivan: (11:57) Hello

  Lise Fuhr: (11:57) Hello

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (11:57) ¡Hola a todos!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:00) Hello all!

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:00) Hello everyone

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:01) Hello

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:01) Hi all  my power has cinveniently been reconnected  (aboiut 50 mins ago) foinger crssed it willstay on for a while this time...

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC): (12:01) Evening, wull mute

  Lise Fuhr: (12:01) Yes that is quite a storm in Australia

  Alan Greenberg: (12:01) How are your soggy carpets Cheryl?

  Holly Gregory: (12:01) hi everyone.

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (12:02) Mute your mics, please

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:02) Hi all

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (12:02) The failure to mute should result in a mandatory a capella performance

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:04) @Graeme, it already has.

  jorge cancio GAC: (12:04) hi all

  Chris Disspain: (12:04) Greetings

  Mary Uduma: (12:08) Hello Everyone

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:09) Hi Mary

  Marika Konings: (12:12) Section III starts on page 17

  Marika Konings: (12:13) And also to note, some of the comments overlapped - so those that seemed to be addressed by other comments have not been included.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:13) thanks @Marika

  Staffan Jonson: (12:14) Hi all

  Marika Konings: (12:14) Note that Avri has suggested some changes to Annex L that were not captured yet in the version reviewed by Sidley.

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:14) Hello everyone

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (12:15) The abbrevation PRF is never defined in the document. The first time is mentioned is in page 19 in one of the middle bullets.

  Marika Konings: (12:15) Please note that I missed Alan's comments regarding DT F - I'll get these incorporated as soon as possible.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:16) @Eduardo - I think that team should now be IANA Review Function

  Marika Konings: (12:16) Eduardo, please note that it has already been updated (see page 19)

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:16) Copy edit

  Avri Doria: (12:16) IFR - IANA function review

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (12:16) @MArika: OK I was looking at version 3.3

  Marika Konings: (12:16) Thanks :-)

  Avri Doria: (12:16) & IFRT re the latest nams we have been given

  Marika Konings: (12:17) The latest version is up on the screen (but has not been circulated to the list yet)

  Staffan Jonson: (12:17) Jonathan is gliding in and out of mute for me

  Marika Konings: (12:17) Note we will also be including a glossary

  Milton Mueller: (12:17) mute-gliding: a new sport

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:17) Use the + button Jonathan

  Holly Gregory: (12:17) Having difficulty hearing Jonathan

  Lise Fuhr: (12:17) No problem

  Milton Mueller: (12:17) no problem

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (12:17) no you are fine here

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:17) to make the document larger in the window

  Staffan Jonson: (12:17) OK

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:17) all OK  via AC

  Mary Uduma: (12:17) ok

  Marika Konings: (12:18) Section III starts on page 17

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:18) Sad to see "decomposed" go....

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:19) I withdraw my comment on page 18

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:20) Glad to see a good proofread/copy edit seems to have been done.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:21) If we don't have clarity on what it means, I would delete

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:24) I am okay with not flagging it Jonathan.

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:26) Automatic renewal on page 20 i presume will be after the outcome of the 5 years review?

  Milton Mueller: (12:26) +1 .

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:26) sagree ay every 5 yrs

  Milton Mueller: (12:26) every 5 years.

  Lise Fuhr: (12:26) +1

  Holly Gregory: (12:26) +1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:26) ok

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:26) @Seun- correct

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:26) Thanks

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:26) @Marika-this may need a global search on 5 years to conform

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:26) Yes @Sharon -- got it

  Milton Mueller: (12:29) tell them to join

  Alan Greenberg: (12:29) Was v3.4 document either distributed or uploaded?

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:30) Chris and Alan -- I lowered your hands by accident I think! Please re-raise them!

  Marika Konings: (12:30) Yes, sorry, I missed the GNSO

  Marika Konings: (12:30) from Avri's edits

  Staffan Jonson: (12:30) Yes, assume that ccNSO AND gNSO has be into it

  Marika Konings: (12:30) Will do :-)

  Alan Greenberg: (12:31) If my hand was up it was a mistake.

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:31) Can we have the 3.4 shared?

  Marika Konings: (12:31) I've deleted 'operational'

  Paul Kane: (12:31) Historically, IANA staff were placed under pressure by ICANN to deliver different levels of serivce to ccNSO members and non-ccNSO members, contracted and non-contracted parties.  A significant majority of ccTLDs do not have nor want contracts with IANA

  Marika Konings: (12:31) @Seun - we can share after the meeting so that the edits / comments discussed are incorporated.

  Staffan Jonson: (12:32) Still Pauls issueremains

  Alan Greenberg: (12:32) @Marika, v3.4 would be appreciated - easier to follow in seprate document than in Adobe pod.

  Lise Fuhr: (12:33) @Staffan yes it does

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:33) @Marika i guess Alan raised the reason why its preferred to be shared now

  Avri Doria: (12:33) bad writing

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:34) I can respond if needed.

  Milton Mueller: (12:34) True, Paul's issue has not been addressed. But we have to rely on defined institutions to trigger decisions and processes, and maybe these entities who are not part of ccNSO should just  join

  Marika Konings: (12:34) If you click on the menu at the top of the pod, you have a 'save as' option

  Staffan Jonson: (12:35) Lise: you mean Puals issue?

  Marika Konings: (12:35) and that should allow you to download the version that is up on the screen

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:35) Consider whether supermajority is the right threshold rather than majority of ccNSO/GNSO

  Lise Fuhr: (12:35) @Staffan yes Paul's issue

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:35) +1 to Donna

  Avri Doria: (12:35) F has the longer process.  i t was not meant to go back to the cCSC, but the process was initiated by the CSc.  bad writing, as i said

  Chris Disspain: (12:35) ccNSO doesn't generally do anything other than by 66%

  Maarten Simon: (12:36) Maybe we could resolve Paul's issue by making sure within the ccNSO that decisions like this have to be taken including the voice of the non members

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:36) @Chris - if that's their normal operating procedure, then 2/3 may be fine

  Milton Mueller: (12:36) good question, Jonathan!

  Avri Doria: (12:37) i put it that way becasue it is what i thought C wanted.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:37) @Jonathan: I agree. The GNSO & ccNSO do not appear to have any process in place for such escalation, do they?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:37) and what happens when the ccTLD is not a ccNSO member? Why ccNSO?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:37) I think because it is a much bigger decision, Jonathan:  it really foes need to have a community input

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:37) Sorry my line has dropped

  Chris Disspain: (12:37) Martin + 1

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:38) And I also think we should expect the ccNSO & GNSO would consult

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:38) Including non-ccNSO members.

  Chris Disspain: (12:38) I have an answer to Paul's question

  Paul Kane: (12:39) Many ccTLDs do NOT participate in the ccNSO

  Paul Kane: (12:39) I don't think it is necessary step

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:39) Sorry whats the review function? PRF or IRF?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:39) @Olivier:  ccNSO because it exists and has mailing lists to ask for wider input

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:39) I'm back, but I think the issue has passed.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:40) So non-ccNSO members can say if they want a review to CSC members and in response to a general ccTLD mailing list

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:40) @Seun - IANA review function is new term for PRF (Periodic Review Function)

  Staffan Jonson: (12:40) In earlier talks, we also talked (Istanbul) about having ccNSO accepting/welcoming non-members into this specific process

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:40) okay @Sharon thanks for the clarification

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:41) lol @chris  the SO you have when your nt having an SO ;-)

  Milton Mueller: (12:41) Anyway, GNSO and ccNSO review would be a very rare occurrence, if it happened at all

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:41) In that case i don't see why CSC would jump its manager(PTI) and escalate to IRF

  Paul Kane: (12:42) And a super majority is FAR too high

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:42) @ Seun:  Why do you think the PTI manages the CSC?

  Milton Mueller: (12:42) good point, Lise

  Paul Kane: (12:42) Lise +1

  Allan MacGillivray: (12:42) A supermajority of ccNSO members would be an extremely high bar to overcome as while ccNSO membership is growing, actual ccNSO particpation is not. 

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:42) fair point Lise  needs to be nted at some point here in a footnote or in the annex

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:42) PTI does not manage CSC....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:42) nted = noted

  Chris Disspain: (12:43) Can we not let the SOs and ACs comment on this stuff rasther than refine it here?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:43) voting threshold could be deferred at this time. if no consensus

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:43) Thank you

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:43) @Chuck maybe i chose the wrong word, what i meant is why will CSC not escalate to PTI that manages IANA

  Chris Disspain: (12:44) in other parts of our discussions including Accountability we have allowed fr each So and AC to set its owbb threshold

  Chris Disspain: (12:44) own

  Marika Konings: (12:45) @Brendan - there were several objections to your proposed change and as such I did not incorporate it

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:45) @ Seun: The escalation to the PTI would have already happened and failed at that point.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:46) If agreement - suggested language: "a special review may also be initiated by the ccNSO and GNSO upon a recommendation by the CSC"

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:46) @Chuck okay if that has happened, and PTI refuses to address CSC concern then CSC can escalate to IRF

  Matthew Shears: (12:46) @ Chuck - is that escalation path clearly articulated somewhere?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:46) @Chuck - agree.  The CSC and on to the periodic review are more ICANN level accountability mechanisms

  Avri Doria: (12:46) then we have no special IFR?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:47) I'm not happy with Staffan's proposal

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:47) Edit, but not remove

  Staffan Jonson: (12:47) Mmm, but there are other problems with the tex as well

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:47) Here is the wording in the Problem Mgmt Process (Annex J): "3.       If CSC determines that the remedial action has been exhausted and has not led to necessary improvements, the CSC is authorized to escalate to the ccNSO and/or the GNSO , which might then decide to take further action using agreed consultation and escalation processes"

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:47) I understand Paul's point, but I'd also add that all gTLD registries are not part of the RySG and potentially the GNSO. We were relying on existing structures within ICANN absent any other viable options.

  Lise Fuhr: (12:48) @Sharon good compromise text plus adding taking into account non ccNSO members as a footnote

  Chris Disspain: (12:48) anarchy rules, assuming we can be bothered

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:48) so a requirement to consult registry non-members of the ccNSO and GNSO?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:49) And supermajority of the councils based on the input received?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:49) @ Paul: Is there time for cc's to resolve this issue before publication tomorrow?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:49) @chris tht is far to whitty for you at this time of our day (well morning I guess) 0350

  Chris Disspain: (12:49) sounds right Martin

  Paul Kane: (12:49) Wow - tomorrow

  Allan MacGillivray: (12:49) @Martin +1

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:50) Supermajority can mean anything from 2/3 on up.  A significant review should note be initiated by a bare majority.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:50) @ Paul:  Should this be dealt with during the public comment period?

  Paul Kane: (12:50) Happyu with that

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:50) actually @Chuck on other discussed language is good

  Lise Fuhr: (12:50) +1 Jonathan and Avri

  Chris Disspain: (12:50) Jonathan, I think you havd to include non-gnso member registries also on that basis

  Staffan Jonson: (12:50) Donna, yes, and then again several g:s are at least bound and protected by at least  contract. C:s sometimes have the oppsite problem of beeing protected from e.g. capture

  Staffan Jonson: (12:51) of NOT beeing protected

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:51) Could replace ccNSO with a ccTLD body consisting of ccNSO and non-ccNSO members.

  Milton Mueller: (12:51) creating another new entity for a once in a blue moon possibility?

  Chris Disspain: (12:51) there is no such body Greg and there won't be an appetite to create one

  Staffan Jonson: (12:51) Yes Greg, that is contstructive

  Paul Kane: (12:51) I preferred Jonathan's language

  Maarten Simon: (12:51) maybe we should go for a two stage vote. 1 simple majority of all casted votes 2. first vote rejected if within 30 days more than half of all voting parties voice disagreement

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:51) @Marika I saw two, but still feel there is inconsistency between the Section III.A bullet which says "ICANN...continues as the IANA functions operator" and later descirption that "gives PTI the rights and obligations as the IANA Functions Operator."

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:52) It would not be a true body, it would come together only for this purpose -- consider it a ccNSO open house.

  Marika Konings: (12:52) change it to 'following escalation by' ?

  Chris Disspain: (12:52) Greg, that alreadu can be done and often is - it was the case with IDNs for example

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:52) @Milton and @Chris+1

  Milton Mueller: (12:52) Greg: I think consultation is enough

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:52) @Milton:  yes

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:53) @ Chuck - once CSC decides to escalate, isn't the review the mechanism to address.  What else would CSC expect ccNSO and GNSO to do?

  Avri Doria: (12:53) Brenden's placeholder?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:54) the CSC would provide the facts to the ccNSO and GNSO regarding failed remediation, and the ccNSO/GNSO would decide if the issue should result in RFP. Bear in mind that when we decided to escalate to the ccNSO/GNSO it was a default DT-C used because there was uncertainty whether there would be an MRT or some other body for the CSC to escalate issues to.

  Paul Kane: (12:54) Jonathan's language of treating all on an equal basis is satisfactory  as holding text - but it needs more work later

  Alan Greenberg: (12:54) Which para/page are we now on.

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:54) @Chuck i think the remedial action you refer (Annex J)may need to be better defined and i don't think ccNSO/GNSO shold be the end point for names....their recommendation should go to IRF which is more MS vested. By the way i expect a lot would have gone wrong before it gets to this level

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:55) @ Sharon: ccNSO/GNSO would review and decide whether to escalate further, i.e. to the IANA Review Team or some broader community process to initiate a 'nuclear' option.

  Matthew Shears: (12:55) need a statement up front that post transition  ICANN is the contrcator and PTI the operator

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:56) The last sentence in Annex J: "The IANA Review Function will include provision to consider whether there are any systemic issues which are impacting IANA services, which might then decide to take further action using agreed consultation and escalation processes."

  Chris Disspain: (12:56) I disagree with Milton's wording

  Milton Mueller: (12:56) oh you would

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:56) as do I

  Milton Mueller: (12:56) :=)

  Chris Disspain: (12:56) Sigh...

  Milton Mueller: (12:57) then describe ICANN as the contractor

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:57) Say ICANN is granting the rights and obligations

  Chris Disspain: (12:57) I have no problem with having a clear description in simple terms

  Chris Disspain: (12:57) I have no problem with having a clear description in simple terms but we also cannot pre-empt the public comment on the CCWG work

  Chris Disspain: (12:58) sorry . I don't mean CCWG

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:58) Brendans proposed language works does it not?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:58) I can suggest language

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:58) Yes Sharon please

  Matthew Shears: (12:59) + 1 "to contunue as" is problematical - need greater slecificity

  Matthew Shears: (12:59) specificity

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:59) fine with getting Sidley to propose deffinative language

  Milton Mueller: (12:59) me too

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:59) @Greg - Sidley can address these 2 bullets and clarify

  Brenden Kuerbis: (13:00) Thanks all, I have to run to another meeting. Good luck wordsmithing, confident we'll come up with an accurate description.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:00) bye Brendan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:00) and yes I am waitnng for you in that meeeting

  Chris Disspain: (13:00) Let's let Sidley wordsmith this as they havbe offered to do

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:03) What, no Telex?

  Milton Mueller: (13:03) dot dot dot, dash dash dash

  Alan Greenberg: (13:03) Carrier pigeon

  Alan Greenberg: (13:04) http://www.pigeongram.com/

  Chris Disspain: (13:05) there are many small ccTLDs who's governments mandate that they use fax etc...we need to ensure that they are not treated as second class citizens of IANA

  Paul Kane: (13:05) I will send out a draft asap - today

  Chris Disspain: (13:05) *whose*

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:06) I still run across fax requirements here in the good ole USA.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:06) @Chuck +1

  Chris Disspain: (13:06) Ditto

  Paul Kane: (13:06) I am happy either way

  Milton Mueller: (13:06) @Greg: yeah, most of them are products of the Patriot ACt

  Chris Disspain: (13:07) sounds about riht jonathan

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:07) I suggest putting the SLEs as drafted and note the areas still being worked.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:08) Yup agree @Chuck

  Milton Mueller: (13:08) @Disspain: The US financial system seems to have something in common with small ccTLDs

  Alan Greenberg: (13:11) What is plan if we don't finish this review in the next 49 minutes? There is a CCWG meeting scheduled immediately after.

  Chris Disspain: (13:12) we could spend the next 49 minutes discussing what we'll do if we run out of time :-)

  Alan Greenberg: (13:12) Good plan Chris!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:13) That's a bit recursive....

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:13) I thought its IANA review function? can we try to be consistent with wordings/acronyms (ref page 24)

  Chris Disspain: (13:13) CSC, Jonathan

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:13) I do think we are trying, Seun.  What makes you think we are not?

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:13) Yes @Seun, we will do a copyedit. Been focusing on content and incorporating comments

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:14) okay noted @Grace

  Staffan Jonson: (13:14) Yes

  Chris Disspain: (13:14) + 1 Jonathan

  Matthew Shears: (13:14) makes sense

  Chris Disspain: (13:14) Staff + CSC is correct

  Staffan Jonson: (13:15) well yes business continuity is what I thought we outlined, and therefore CSC + staff

  Maarten Simon: (13:16) fine. You just saved me some time

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:17) SIdley comment 21 was derivative of Martin's so no need to address

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:19) OK:  it was the wider funding that left me concerned

  Matthew Shears: (13:19) were there to be another operator ICANN would fund/pay for as contractor, correct?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:19) We may not be sufficient to just say R&D funding.  There could be the need for implementation funding of new standards or technologies.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:19) But what happens if it is not funded?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:20) @ Martin:  It doesn't happen or reserve funds are used.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:20) I think Sidley comment 22 can be addressed through revised language: "the functions provided by IANA Functions Operator and NTIA..."

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:20) Please paste your text @alan

  Chris Disspain: (13:21) I agree with Alan

  Alan Greenberg: (13:22) Control of Root Zone Control ManagementCurrently updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties, the IANA Functions Operator, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. The IANA Functions Operator receives change requests from various sources, validates them, and sends them to the Root Zone Maintainer who, once they are authorized by the NTIA, updates the Root Zone File, DNSSEC signs it, and distributes it to the Root operators.Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. It is clear that the CWG is not suggesting any change to this operational relationship at the moment, but is considering whether this division of responsibility must be maintained in the long term, or could be altered in the future, either to combine the functions, or two reallocated the responsibilities. Proponents of the current division believe that having two parties involved reduces the chance of errors or untoward action. Others believe that we should look at the ov

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:23) The point I was trying to ake in that comment, however, was that it'd be fine to say in the draft, "This separation shouldn't change now."

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:23) This is a future issue.  Not a transition issue per se.

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:24) @Greg: right

  Alan Greenberg: (13:24) @Greg. Andrew. I agree.

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:24) For the purposes of the transition, the separation should continue

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:24) I think that's good enough

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:24) We should be concentrating on Zero Day issues.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:24) Agree with ANdrew.

  Suzanne Woolf: (13:25) @Andrew, the current draft does say that-- IIRC the discussion in DT-F was entirely about what, if anything, to say about the post-transition environment-- there was no controversy about keeping it for now

  Suzanne Woolf: (13:25) (at least I think the current draft says so, I may have lost track)

  Avri Doria: (13:25) isn't is still sort of out of scope at this point?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:26) Let's put in all the things we're not proposing right now.... :-)

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:26) We are now officially in the weeds.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:27) Off with its head.

  Chris Disspain: (13:28) we love weeds

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:28) A statement of no change at the time of transition.is fine.  May as well be clear about the status quo.

  Chris Disspain: (13:28) some of us may well love the singular also

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:29) 420 was yesterday (or two days ago for you).

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:29) I think item 4 attempts to handle the role of the maintainer post transition which i don't think is within our scope

  Chris Disspain: (13:30) but I thought there wasn't consensus on that

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:30) I understand there is a seperate process that will be initiated for that (ref: NTIA faq)

  Chris Disspain: (13:30) which is why Alan suggested withdrawing

  Avri Doria: (13:30) I agree with Seun on this one.

  Chris Disspain: (13:31) if there's consensus then fine

  Milton Mueller: (13:31) Chris: we wree still debating it. No one was advocating integration

  Milton Mueller: (13:31) but some didn't agree with it as a "principle"

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:31) @ Jonathan:  Should we stop going page by page and instead let people identify what they think are the big issues in the draft?

  Chris Disspain: (13:31) happy with Alan's suggestion

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:31) that language works for me @Alan

  Lise Fuhr: (13:32) Annex L

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:32) I think we need to focus some on F.

  Marika Konings: (13:34) It is actually page 47

  Avri Doria: (13:34) F starts on 47

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC): (13:34) I had comments on page 36 (now 37 I believe)

  Marika Konings: (13:35) @Jaap - your suggested language has been incorporated

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC): (13:36) I noticed, thanks. So I guess it is accepted by the group

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:36) background noise?

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:36) getting echo

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:37) Jonathan - -I muted your mic due to echo

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:38) @Marika: in "Composition of Review Team" there needs to be a closing bracket after "ALAC"

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:39) Thanks @OCL

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:39) Thanks Avri.

  Marika Konings: (13:40) @Olivier - fixed

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:40) Rather than referring generally to the community right to initiate action, I think we should specify who can do this -- ccNSO/GNSO.  Anyone else?

  Avri Doria: (13:41) yes, i was not comfortable until that method of triggereing had been agreed to.

  Lise Fuhr: (13:41) @Sharon we still need to include non ccNSO ccTLDs

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:41) may i understand why RySG has 2 reps on review team?

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:41) or was that a typo error?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:41) @ Seun:  Same reason ccNSO has two.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC 2: (13:41) yes - that's a question for public comment

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:42) @Avri and Jonathan - Ok. I understand it's a question for public comment

  Marika Konings: (13:43) Page 70

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:43) @Chuck is there anything like non-RySG for gTLD?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:43) @Chuck: same reason as ccNSO - do you mean 1 seat for RySG and one for gTLD operators that are not in RySG?

  Marika Konings: (13:44) Note that some updates have been made by DT L to Annex L compared to the version that was circulated yesterday.

  Milton Mueller: (13:44) makes a lotof sense

  Marika Konings: (13:44) The updated version is up on the screen.

  Milton Mueller: (13:44) I had assumed that separation was always a step after a review

  Marika Konings: (13:45) by DT N (not DT L)

  Chris Disspain: (13:45) @ Sharon...yes in my view

  Milton Mueller: (13:45) or a regular review?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:46) @ Olivier:  Giving one seat to RySG members and one to non-members would mean giving a seat to as few as one or two registries.  That would not make sense.

  Chris Disspain: (13:47) @ Sharon...yes

  Chris Disspain: (13:47) the SOs and ACs MUSt have final say

  Chris Disspain: (13:48) at least in my view

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:48) @Chuck: so why 2 RySGs? I can see the need in ccNSO but is this just to match numbers?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:48) +1 Chris

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:49) @ Olivier:  gTLD registries represent over 50% of all domain name registrants.  They should have at least as much representation as ccTLDs.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:49) @Chuck: understood. Thanks!

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:50) What about direct customers supporting any decision to separate? I understand SO/AC must have final say, but shouldn't the direct customers have some weighted say?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:50) Indeed  Chris I agree

  Milton Mueller: (13:50) I don't agree, the process is too long and extended

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:50) @ Donna:  It seems to me that that would be consistent with what NTIA has said.

  Lise Fuhr: (13:51) @Chris that still leaves out the non ccNSO ccTLDs

  Milton Mueller: (13:51) SOs and ACs only make recommendations to the board

  Elise Lindeberg GAC 2: (13:51) exactly Chris !!

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:51) @Olivier and Chuck: I think as a general principle there shoudl be 2 gTLD and 2 ccNSO reps: where they come from may be inconsequential.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:51) sorry 2 ccTLD reps

  Staffan Jonson: (13:53) Sharon Only in the case of separation, not as a general rule

  Elise Lindeberg GAC 2: (13:55) this is fundamental discussions - we need to discuss this further in the CWG during publick commet

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:56) If we consider separation to be the last resort, it seems to me that it would be good to consider other options before considering separation, i.e., RFP, removal of Board members, etc.

  Lise Fuhr: (13:57) Sorry I have to leave - thank you for good comments

  Chris Disspain: (13:58) I need to drop off the call now..

  Chris Disspain: (13:58) thanks all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:59) need to switch to another call now  Bye

  Alan Greenberg: (14:00) Ditto here.

  Avri Doria: (14:00) and i did not think we could assume a specific mechansim.  happy to have recommended langauge, but not sure i understand why the intermediate step.

  Paul Kane: (14:00) But MANY operators endorse ICANN/IANA without being members of AC/SO - how do you plan to include them

  Avri Doria: (14:00) i do thnk we need public comment.  i think it is a step too far.

  Matthew Shears: (14:01) I agree we have to exercise caution on interim steps - they have to be appropriate to the concern at hand

  Avri Doria: (14:03) we can put out a form, but we have to accept free form comment.

  Matthew Shears: (14:03) I would suggest strcutureed with optional comment boxes

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:03) I understand the reasons for this form, but I will observe that this is pretty novel and the public comment is already pretty short

  Seun Ojedeji: (14:03) Why do we need to make name compulsory?

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:03) I like the form . It helps in categorizaing the comments

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:03) it looks a little like inventing new procedures _ad hoc_

  Avri Doria: (14:03) and those comment boxes restrict length of comment.

  Marika Konings: (14:04) @Seun - as the commenters are expected to identify themselves.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:04) @Avri: I beleive this is an online form so you  will be able to open-up the boxes

  Avri Doria: (14:04) but they may decide we need feedback on stuff we dont realize we need comment on.

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:05) I agree with Avri's point: how do we know what parts we need feedback on?  Maybe people will think this proposal is just totally wong

  Avri Doria: (14:05) Eduardo, we have used these in the past and writing a long piece in the comment box can be challenging.

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (14:05) I am having many drop outs of the audio....

  Elise Lindeberg GAC 2: (14:05) Ok with formated - but need room for free form also

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (14:05) I agree with Chuck's point.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:05) We should have another box just for any other general comments

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:05) Makes sense Marika.

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:05) Yes @Eduardo, that will be at the end. This is just an intial draft

  Seun Ojedeji: (14:05) @Marika, i understand that but again we may have those who don't want to add a name. Perhaps because they prefer not to be identified?

  Avri Doria: (14:05) What Marika says works for me.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (14:05) This is pretty free form actually.  Just trying to split the parts up.

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:06) Also, is there a back end database behind all this?  How well has it been tested?  One hardly wants the sort of technical problems that plagued the new gTLD process

  Suzanne Woolf: (14:06) IMHO a form can be provided for guidance on the areas the CWG especially wants to hear about, but it seems really important to not restrict freeform comment as well

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:06) Seun, people needs to send an email to submit the comments, so they will have an idenifyiing email no?

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:06) @Seun: use anonymous

  Matthew Shears: (14:06) structure by sections and allow a general commnt box at the end

  Marika Konings: (14:06) @Seun - I am not sure why the CWG would want to consider comments that are anonymous?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (14:07) On the Annex L open point: possible language below:

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:07) @Grace: I though this is going to be an on-line form

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (14:07) Triggers for the Separation MechanismAn outcome of an IANA Review Function could include a recommendation to initiate a separation of the IANA Functions Operator.  This recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration, with ultimate input by the multistakeholder community through the CCWG Accountability mechanisms under consideration.  Footnote: A point for public comment is whether the IANA Review Function recommendation for separation should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board, or whether it should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Review Function team.

  Avri Doria: (14:07) ewell if the thought is good, does it matter where it comes from?

  Seun Ojedeji: (14:07) @Grace the content of the comment would matter right? and not the identity?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:07) I don't think Anonymous comments should be accepted.

  Avri Doria: (14:07) i prefer atributed comments, but we should not ignore the anonymous comment just becasue it is anonymous.

  Seun Ojedeji: (14:08) sorry @Marika

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:08) The form doesn't seem to have room for comments on the annexes.  Given that most of the meat is in the annexes, how will people comment on that?

  Marika Konings: (14:08) WG members cannot participate anonymously, so why should commenters not be required to identify themselves?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:08) The identity is the only way to screen out frivolous comments.

  Marika Konings: (14:08) @Andrew - we will add those, this is just an initial draft to show what it could look like.

  Avri Doria: (14:09) i do not think we should invite anonymous, but if we get a reasonable comment, we shoudl deal with it.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (14:09) Comments are typically submitted by email, which generally identifies the sender.

  Seun Ojedeji: (14:09) I fear this form template could run to pages? hope it will not get people board. Can there be another option to upload response with just the minimal data entered on the form (like names, affliation etc)

  Avri Doria: (14:09) Greg, but it is easy to send an 'anonymized' email

  Seun Ojedeji: (14:09) @Greg i guess the email thing is not what we are using this time

  Marika Konings: (14:10) @Seun - if someone doesn't have input on a section, they can just leave it blank.

  Avri Doria: (14:10) and is a name we dont know that is made up, better than an anymous comment?

  Marika Konings: (14:10) @Seun - yes, all comments need to be submitted by email - attaching the template

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:10) Thanks all.

  Matthew Shears: (14:10) thanks all

  Maarten Simon: (14:10) thanks, bye

  Staffan Jonson: (14:11) Thank You all. Go staff go!

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:11) Updated draft will be circulated after this call

  Avri Doria: (14:11) bye off to the next.

  Andrew Sullivan: (14:11) thanks

  Seun Ojedeji: (14:11) @Marika...oh...okay thats fine then. I thought it was a form to be filled online

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (14:11) bye

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (14:11) Thanks Jonathan! Bye all!

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:11) Adios