[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #38 - 14 April
Brenda Brewer
brenda.brewer at icann.org
Tue Apr 14 09:11:58 UTC 2015
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #38 on 14 April will be available
here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896590
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
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150414/54edac0f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150414/54edac0f/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150414/54edac0f/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list