[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Actions items from RFP3 call 16 Jan

[Brenda Brewer]

Dear all, 

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the RFP3 Call on 16 January are available here:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51415506


Agenda: 


1. Return to reviewing the CSC Structural Analysis, which can be found in Google Drive at the
following link:

 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kEMsYy6ABffka7G1iONO7VzTRlD4UwB0n05UdV8pAjA/edit?usp=sharing>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kEMsYy6ABffka7G1iONO7VzTRlD4UwB0n05UdV8pAjA/edit?usp=sharing

2.  Consider the areas of divergence from the surveys (as opposed to areas of convergence, which
were explored over the weekend).  I will recirculate those emails shortly.

3. Review Section 3 of the Draft Proposal with an eye toward preparing a revised version for
discussion in Singapore.  A copy of Section 3 is attached.

 

Notes: 

Goal today is to drill down on concept on customer standing committee

 

Review of CSC Structural Analysis

Entity Status of CSC // Relationship to ICANN

*       Communities sign on to recognize the CSC <--> and ICANN will need to recognize them

*       Staffan Jonson: Could use Avri's idea of having an IETF or ISOC affiliation so as to keep
the CSC limited to technical and operational oversight

*       IETF is an "activity" of ISOC -- the 4th step in IETF appeals process is ISOC. So IETF is
independent, but lives under the ISOC umbrella. 

*       Could CSC "hang under" ICANN? Could ICANN be the umbrella for CSC? Yes, if well defined. 

*       Are we assuming that the role that which is based in the document circulated for this call?

*       Staffan Jonson: The role of CSC was to represent Registries and IANA Functions Operator. In
that case, the CSC doesn't need to be legally recognized. It could be like any other organization of
ICANN

*       Greg Shatan: CSC needs to be more inclusive of other stakeholders

*       The group that is making the decision for separability is essentially part of the group that
the would separate from

Note: Tying definitions to "IANA Functions Operator" instead of "ICANN" is more future proof

 

Relationship to MRT

*       The CSC doesn't escalate problems itself --> it goes to MRT

*       Role and composition are not the same thins. The role of the mission (and the

*       Avri Doria (personal): support the idea of the CSC moving if the ICANN. In IETF model, the
only relation is for appeals. Should consider talking to the experts who set up this structure

*       Martin Boyle: CSC should respond to the multi-stakeholder community and to the customers.
Only to MRT if we want to escalate

*       Stephanie Duchesneau: clarify the language of "takes direction from" --->  directions should
be clarified, presumably the CSC responsibilities which will include both regular monitor duties and
addressing particular issues that were flagged by customers. Both of these types of responsibilities
should be set forth in some governing documents (charter?) which is what it should be taking
directions form.

*       Greg: concerned that the CSC will become "cartel-like" ie less multistakeholder and
transparent. We need to control for this. 

*       Martin Boyle: we are looking to raise issue of concern to the supplier... Cartel aspect
comes in because we could fire the operator if we do something the group 

*       Inclusion of experts lessens the cartel aspect -- experts can raise alarms

*       Need to look at function before structure

*       CSC is similar to a Level 1 Helpdesk (power to talk and power to act)

*       Avri Doria: Power to not act, or refusal to act (in this case of a bad policy for example)

*       Stephanie Duchesneau: registries may not have that incentive. 

*       Donna Austin: ccTLD have a long relationship with IANA and has set out processes for
monitoring... Can someone from ccTLD community speak to this?

*       Bernie Turcotte: was the first to set up relationship with ccTLDs and IANA. Eventually
became very good relationship. Hope that the CSC will have a similar concept. 

*       Staffan Jonson and Martin Boyle agree that that the IANA performance is good/satisfactory
today.

*       Separation between formulating policy and overviewing policy is, and should be the main
separation between CSC and MRT

*       Martin Boyle: CSC should be more in communicator position rather than enforcer

Organizational Documentation (Charter, etc.)

*       Why a Charter for CSC? Do you mean terms of reference and modus operandi?

*       Charter = Terms of Reference + Modus Operandi

*       Perhaps add an addendum to clarify what they definition is

 

Transparency

(all generally agree)

 

Two different approaches: 

- IANA Observer on the call

- Questions formulated to IANA

At a minimum, should have a more open line of communication with

 

Humor // Good lines: 

.  Lawyers peel onions and make OTHERS cry. 

 Action Items

All to review the CSC Structural Analysis, which can be found in Google Drive at the following link:

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kEMsYy6ABffka7G1iONO7VzTRlD4UwB0n05UdV8pAjA/edit?usp=sharing

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150117/e12e4d2d/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/20150117/e12e4d2d/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/20150117/e12e4d2d/smime-0001.p7s>