[CWG-Stewardship] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CWG IANA DT-F Meeting #2 on 15 April

[Gomes, Chuck]

For my suggested edits please see the attached redline, in particular recommendations 1.b and 6.  What I put in the chat didn't show the deleted text as deleted so what is in the notes doesn't make sense.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brenda Brewer
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 6:04 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CWG IANA DT-F Meeting #2 on 15 April

Dear all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA DT-F Meeting #2 on 15 April will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896693

Notes

 DT F call 15 April 2015

Comments received from Milton

Timing CWG: Recommendations  DT F need to be read by tomorrow

Structure:

Recommendations that MUST be included

Identify topics  to be addressed later.

Two versions: short form of recomemndation and whatever size is necessary

Suggestion use Milton's suggestions for short document

Identifying NTIA "routine " Authorization goes away

1 a. Section

Why say in short term?

Currently prohibited to make changes.

Alternative: eiither change before software, or handled on interim basis, without any need to make change

Chuck suggestion, make explicit. what is meant

Changes to be made

1 b.

.Chuck suggestion, third sentences.

Add, nor whether what will be in place,

Suggested change:

The exact form of the latter transition is not currently known, nor what whether anything will replace the current
Cooperative Agreement. However, there will likelymay be a requirement to have a formal agreement between the IANA
Function Operator and The Root Zone Maintainer.

Does the group want to specify additional checks and balances or leave it for later stage?

David: include as a recommendation caution not to go one entity

Chuck: suggest # 6 as suggestion

Recommendation is: additional analysis is needed

Recommendation 2

NTIA more extensive than anticipated first

NTIA is getting into fair amount

Question: Is DT F going to make a recommendation or someone else

David: Sensitivities invovled, appropriate to make recoeedation that CWG identify a party that explores issues.

NTIA  approval needed for different categories

Authorization of changes

On day-to day basis

Publish reporting

Approval monthly reports

Document approval

Question Alan: how often approval and is it real function?

Question: what needs prior community approval, what can be done by IFO, with out prior approval by community

Topic needs to be considered, what needs to be reviewed/ approved

Unclear what rationale was for NTIA.

Question What is  current rationale, to provide guidance.?

Are there real issues or just concerns of USG.?

Focus on structural aspects and not on presentation aspects.

Question Alan: Are ther topics that need to be discussed outside IAAN, but not fit for public comment?

Issues specific to specific situation or cases could be anissue, but not in general items

Capture notion that check for everything creates issues by itself, at the same some items may need to be

Default should be on openness  and tranparancy as main principle, in some operational circumstances,confidentiality may be required -> need to be documented

Interaction is vast majority of cases be open and transparent.

Note that ATRT 1 and ATRT 2, transparnacy is needed and need to be in DNA

Chuck: timing could make it an issue. >making it public when changes already made, non-issue

Section 3.

Question: is this in DT O?

DT O recommended that as the solution get more well-defined to check whether budget has covered them

DT O has included general recommendation . However suggestion to re-amphasize point.

Cheryl: In addition to DTO recommendation  DT F specially notes inclusion of

Issues Warranting further discussion

Simply listing allows others to pursue these items ( CSC or part of Periodic review

If considered critical infrastructure then items should be looked at in a consistent manner. Stornger suggestion that study must be done

to be considered by chair

Section 5. What should be public and not be public

Recommendation  needs to be added on in line with discussion

David: Suggest to take into account phasing of change request process. Point for publication is when validation has been completed.

What really matters is that changes has been accepted for processing

Agree it should be studied.

In specific cases of delegation and redelgation of ccTLD that third parties.

Introduce new section Principles that should be adhered to

Include transparence as well ( Section 5)

Section 6

Making a statement of concentration of power is appropriate

suggestion Chuck

Currently updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties, the IANA Function Operator, the Root Zone Maintainer
and the NTIA. Post transition there will only be the first two. DT-F recommends that the remaining two functions should
never be awarded to a single entity. Note that the implications of this might vary depending on whether any or all of the
robustness issues identified in Issue 1 have been addressed."

What i spurpose of separation of IF and RZM, is to esnure two person control. Reduce risk of failures. malicious behaviour etc.

Risk mitigation tool

This looks at changes proposed to change implemented.

Two parties control does not fix all problems, but catches some

Sugestion: there should be no concentration of power but we need to explore how best to  implement it

Section 7

Concern: if community wants to make slower

What i spurpose of separation of IF and RZM, is to esnure two person control. Reduce risk of failures. malicious behaviour etc.

Risk mitigation tool

This looks at changes proposed to change implemented.

Two parties control does not fix all problems, but catches some

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150415/bf6b26e9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150415/bf6b26e9/image002-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DT-F_Rec-v02 with Gomes edits.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 25760 bytes
Desc: DT-F_Rec-v02 with Gomes edits.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150415/bf6b26e9/DT-F_Rec-v02withGomesedits-0001.docx>