[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #23 24 FEB

[Brenda Brewer]

Dear all, 

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #23 on 24 February are available here:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889144

 


Action Items:


Action (Donna Austin) Need list of names for Service Levels Design Team 

Action (Paul Kane): proposal needed for Service Levels DT

Action (Allan MacGillivray)  submit proposal for IAP


Notes 24/2: 


Opening Remarks

Committed to a refreshed approach 

Bernie has been developing a version 2.0 draft:  

1. can be used as a map

2. compared to other proposals

3. can be used as a backbone to hang incremental progress (such as work of the Design Teams)

 

Finalization of Work Methods

*       Meet twice per week as CWG (as much substance as possible)

*       3 meeting slots for Design Teams:
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Sign+Up+Meeting+Slots>
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Sign+Up+Meeting+Slots

*       Role of Chairs in Design Teams: coordinate and manage the fact that DTs are not all running
at the same time and that there are not too many people in one DT, etc. 

Integrated Model

Presented by Avri Doria

*       Idea started at ICANN52

*       Wanted to preserve what is most important about IANA as we know it (continuity).

*       Didn't expect to build another model, was looking for compromise points (but it turned into
another model)

*       There is a degree of separation in all of them (today this exists too -- the IANA team is
functionally separate)

*       Included notion of a community Board including all three operational commnities (sort of a
"MRT plus" because accountable to greater community)

Questions/Discussion

*       Community Board is an accountability anchor (includes other operational communities)

*       This model would make IANA one degree further of separation from what currently exists with
GDD

*       Model proposers advocate for the model, but have flexibility with the variants. Preference
for shared services model. 

*       Andrew Sullivan: Subsidiary approach is most doable in this year's timeframe 

*       Elise Lindeberg: Possibility for separation of IANA: how can this be done in this model?
Response (Avri Doria): can be done but would require a process (initiated by ICANN or Community
Board)

*       Milton Mueller: not sure I understand how separability works. Response (Avri Doria): there
are different degrees of separation already today

*       IAP is something that still hasn't been worked on 

*       Alissa Cooper: The whole discussion about additional involvement from the IETF/RIRs in
oversight seems like a distraction from trying to solve the core issue of contention before this
group, which is where the oversight of the names function will end up on the internal-to-external
spectrum.

Integrated Model Related Links

*       The Integrated Model Description:
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5YZCU/edit?usp=sharing>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5YZCU/edit?usp=sharing

*       Discussion of accountability in the model:
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cKpQ3lenL8Gt6qT6r7JRePlujXp9_xM0c1SlrTFFW90/edit?usp=sharing>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cKpQ3lenL8Gt6qT6r7JRePlujXp9_xM0c1SlrTFFW90/edit?usp=sharing

*       Post Transition IANA Community  Board discussion:
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SwtczN5HzlC5m-IogNQWezDl2sKIHc82ysRnn9yT56Q/edit?usp=sharing>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SwtczN5HzlC5m-IogNQWezDl2sKIHc82ysRnn9yT56Q/edit?usp=sharing

Recap by Chairs

*       Favoring of the subsidiary model; 

*       Lots of mention of accountability (coordination there)

*       IAP needs to be further developed 

Discussion of Proposed Design Teams

Some ideas that have been discussed: 

*       Service Levels 

*       IAP 

*       CSC

Action (Donna Austin) Need list of names for Service Levels Design Team 

Action (Paul Kane): proposal needed for Service Levels DT

Action (Allan MacGillivray)  submit proposal for IAP

*       Propose to have a "funnel" or list of potential Design Teams, but we'll start with 3 and
record the rest for future work

*       Proposals must be submitted on CWG mailing list but the Chairs are to review

AOB

*       A liaison from / to the ICANN board: will not develop the idea at this advanced stage of the
CWG

*       Timetable including F2F meeting in one month: will be producing a fresh version soon. The
F2F meeting will take place in Istanbul on 26-27 March. 

*       Note: Standards of behaviour, tone of discussions: please keep things civil on list.
Depending on how you participate, it may limit how robustly you may respond; please be mindful of
that

*       RFP subgroups: We will no longer run the RFP sub groups. Will meet as committees of the
whole instead. RFP coordinators will continue to be relied on for support. 

Closing Remarks

Thank you Avri and colleagues for substantive meeting

Next meeting is on Thursday 26 February at 11:00 UTC

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150224/9ec11df8/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/20150224/9ec11df8/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/20150224/9ec11df8/smime-0001.p7s>