[CWG-RFP3] Notes from 12 November Meeting

[Grace Abuhamad]

Hi all, 

The notes, recordings, transcripts from today's meeting are available here:
https://community.icann.org/x/dTHxAg

Best, 
Grace 

RFP3 Subgroup Call -- Wednesday 12 November from 14:00 -15:30 UTC
 
1. Welcome and Roll Call
2. Review of Variables Document
3. Review of Framework Document
4. Live-Editing of Pros and Cons Document
5. Thoughts on this sub-group on how best to use time in Frankfurt
6. Assignments for fleshing out parts of Framework Document
7. AOB
 
Notes 12/11 Meeting
 
·     Strawman is first draft - not a final list of proposals but attempt to
capture ideas and proposals circulated to the list so far. If there are any
proposals and/or elements missing, these should be pointed out by the
sub-group and can be updated as such.

·     Need to review RFP2B document at some point to indicate how elements
have been replaced as one of the requirements of the RFP.

·     Content of matrix is identical to individual strawman proposals that
were circulated (to facilitate comparison)

 
Strawman 1 Questions / Comments
·     Although focus is on naming functions, should other clients from IANA
also be considered when working out these proposals? - Each of the other two
communities already have a review body, however, no external body to ICANN
currently for naming community. Question is probably whether the oversight
body is naming only or should/could also incorporate other communities.

·     Security / stability aspects may need to be expanded - e.g. responding
to incidents, review of security / stability issues

·     Would this proposal result in changing to ICANN Bylaws? Probably not,
but may need further consideration.

·     Why is development of governing documents limited to group of
registries and not a multistakeholder approach? This alternative is foreseen
in proposal 2 and 3 and as such is also on the table for consideration.

·     Composition of 2 and 3 are more aligned with views of At-Large

·     Can different straw men proposals be mixed and matched? Yes, that is
the intent. Not intended to be siloed proposals. Same structure was done
with exactly the mixing and matching in mind.

·     How is enhanced separability taken into account under strawman 1?
Self-sufficiency within ICANN structure is considered here so it could be
taken out if needed (e.g. no shared personnel, no shared IT resources, no
shared support resources). No untangling needed should IANA division need to
be taken out. How would this work in practice (taking IANA function out of
ICANN as a mechanism for non-performance) - if performance is bad, taking
IANA function out of ICANN may not be the solution if you would take the
whole division, including staff out of it as well. Straw man 1 only foresees
this option if the breach is as a result of ICANN action / role, not
performance f IANA itself - those would be solved through review and
remedial action (or potentially RFP for a new operator).

 
Strawman 2 Questions / Comments
Features of number 2 may result in a self-sustaining model, more separable
from ICANN than 1, but duplication may add to cost (what would be barred
resources). Consider difference between a separate division and completely
separate entity. 
 
Strawman 3 Questions / Comments
·     Funding may be issue, different arrangements ccTLD and gTLD, stability
ccTLD funding not as ensured as gTLD funding. Splitting up gTLd funding in
portions may be possible

·     Funding: difficulty agreement across registries.

·     If funded by ICANN separability will be issue

·     Participation of GAC: Example of Canadian government officials, not in
position to participate in decision-making position in non-governmental
organizational due to liability issues. GAC representatives requested to
check with their own legal services if similar position as Canada.

·     Question: Funding through charging fee for services?

 
Overall comments
·     Re oversight overall body: should no oversight body as model be
considered?  Answer, not considered, unless in the context of organizational
separation.

·     Oversight functions can be realized in different way then creating
external body, for example review every x years, with potential of
separation, which assumes separability of IANA Function

·     IANA Functions Contract needs to be replaced, in the elements
continued in it. Whether this is done though external body or not is another
question

·     With regard to oversight Function, need for operational checks + need
for oversight body/function to review of contract/review overall terms.

·     A non incorporated oversight body -> risk of personal liability

·     Alternative ideas, please add to matrix for further discussion.
Discussion on merits of proposals and not on in or out of scope, to choose
from ideas.

·     NTIA function re delegation and delegation to be replaced by?
(oversight body, is there a need/ serves a purpose) Maybe check with
NTIA/IANA staff whether check has been useful?

·     Where does oversight body need to incorporated? Some countries provide
exemption to applicability of national law. However going into intricacies
of comparing national laws way beyond scope of WG. Immunity is concept that
may affect accountability adversely

·     gTLDs have a contract with ICANN under California law, whether this
has an impact discussion unclear.

·     Immunity: two=edged swords protects against Frivolous accountability
<-> accountability

 
Next point of discussion:
·     Composition of oversight body/

·     Suggestion to determine what is meant by oversight, to decide whether
one or more entities. See also different proposals

·     Use headings in Matrix in subject line in emails on the list to
channel discussion.

·     Use Google docs for comments, Pro's and Con's to be included in Google
docs repository to make suggestions.

 
MATRIX HAS BEEN SEND TO LIST AND HAS BEEN UPLOADED ON WIKI.
 
Meeting Adjourned at 15: 34 IUTC


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141113/c73e32a5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141113/c73e32a5/smime-0001.p7s>