[DTC CSC] FW: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from CWG-IANA

[Bart Boswinkel]

Dear all,
Notes from todays call and action items

Agenda DT C, 16 March 16.00 UTC:



1. Update on participation of Kim Davies and Ashley Heineman

2. Review of responses to questions

3. Discuss what we think is missing

4. Automation of RZ update

5. Next steps

Action all: within 24 h reveiw contributions and make update

Donna: to prepare analysis, RFP 3, Avri poposala and Auda, and get back to group Thuesday moning UTC

For future Action: Recap discussion for Ashkey and Kim and identify questions if any for them: What escalation processes are currently in place between IANA and NTIA.

BArt: Doodle poll for Friday 20 March afternoon UTC ( 15 or 16.00 )

Automation discussion to be started on list;


Update Kim and Ashley. Kim is avaialble to provide input. Dona will talk to Ashley's

Question how to use experrise?

Martin: agrees with both Ashaley and Kim as much as possible.

Provide clarity around and specific questions, and ask them to be present and provide feed-back on texts.

Staffan: safe them to full particpation on email list

Action: Recap discussion for Ashkey and Kim and identify questions if any

Staffan input section a) of Template

Marked in blue

Not included reference to MRT

Donna: One of the challanges: unknown whether ther will be CSC /MRT strucutire or contract c. SO question develope as stand-alone

Agreement of DT mebers: assume it is a standalone committee

What SSR role? How does it relate to monitoring

Suggest to make comments at sections ehere realted

Kurt:

No role in policy

Rather then SSR role it is an operational role

Liaisons: what is purpose?

IETF and RIR's are also director customer

RSSAC liaisosn also resoanable

LIaisonship of SSAC and ISOC are questioned

Suggested wroding: invited to particpate for specific delberations

Goal is to keep it small

MArtin:

Reference to SSR point, obligations of IAN to undergo regular audits.. Work done on audits, should be drawn to attention to CSC.

Liaisons idea seems to be a good idea, given link to SSR side. I

In section C of document more viewed as part of outreach. Flexibility etc. could be done an annual basis

Donna: Sections in NTIA IANA Functions Contract

Sarah look at section b

List of reports, broad interpretation ( to NTIA AND to public)

Explenation of table Section B template

Row 1: IETF related actvity -> CSC coordinate with IETF

Row 2: Added criteria, for transperancy

Row 3: Added criteria, for transperancy

Kurt: Is job, to report on detail of detail provided?

or should CSC do it once established. Is responsibility to defiene temaplate of reports

Stepahnie: This covered in section d

Donna: what kind of document to put forward for Istanbul

Think a view of what are relervant aspects and shoul be improved

MArtin, Section C

First 3 items regular grind of CSC

4th item: rasie /con

Item 5 what would happen if targets are not met. Try to understadn systemeic failures, escalation

Item 6? CSC memebrs should engage and realy to own community of origin

Donna: Question for Ashley Kim perspectives on what is currently hapening with respect to escalation

Stepanie, Section D template.

Asumption, keep metrics the same

Delegation/redelgation reports, lot of narrative?

What is good source for basics?

Martin: reference to work FOI WG, idea for changing reporting discussion for ccNSO.

Stephanie: Would i be approrpiate for CSC to have role in discussion on reporting? If so, where does it start and end?

Make it timely

Staffan: no direct role for CSC in del an dredelgations of ccTLDs

gTLD reports: more standardised. Assumption, no changes.

Reports high-level in nature, procedural and operational checks.

Ideas about riggers to make changes?

Desription of procedures for changes

Bernie: Does process include, doublechecking with relevant customer community?

Stephanie: community check is not included yet

gTLD

Annual report: not clear what is contained nor process ( no acceess). Prepare questions arounbd this topic?

Kurt: gTLDs are not redelegated. To be checked

Ongoing process control monitoring.to indetify if issues are occuring.

maybe aprt of MArtu=in group or part of Escalation or even SLE group.

Martin: Sounds like dash-board

CSC primarily volunteers. Once a moth receive report, and commits to work omn that day. Risk of overloading, if more continous work is required.

Kurt: Define competent IAAN monitor. For later discussion:outsourcing of monitoring under contract.

Bernie: At the end, maybe outsourcing may be considered. However, now check what works, what needs to be changed, let's be aware of time consequences of bringing in new items.

Donna: realms of third party monitoring not a new disucssion, Note NTIA does have resources in place

Outsourcing to be tabled for later. real time monotoring, unclear if it ishappening right now. For simplicity reasons march ahead

Martin: susspicious of erors/failures that need more then monthy progress ( ongoing)

Maybe allow individual complaints by registries to CSC. However CSC  could be in the middle.  Potential of part of escation

Root zone maangement.

Requirement only if new services are provided.

Question whether monthly or instanteneous. Asumption

Kurt: Section E

Describing what remedial action were, may overlap with escalation

Table: describes triggers, that CSC would notice IANA

Staffan: MAtrix clear starting point for start of escalation

However it is tricky. SLE is talking about it as well. Distinction between contracted and non-contracted parties.

Martin: Welcomes approach, it shows process that is directly to customers.

questions: is ther a level "zero". Yes you failed SLE requriemen, but ther are special circumestance -> new column: intial discussion on failure.

If parties go through process, include plenty opportunity for dialogue.

Staffan, Section F

To be updated

Martin Section H

Identify emerging issues

Suggests annual meeting between registry poerators and IANA on annaula report,

Relates with Stephanie's point.

Donna: Reference to DAvid Conrad's points on the list of CWG ( realted to for example DNSSEC).

Kurt: updates on upcoming changes, include in monthly update

Stapanie: Section I

Concern about minimal group, and experience and right priorities in mind

It should be on a volunteer basis, to be carried out remotely.

Staffan: notes voting

Question: Is there need for  voting?

Donna: Context Everybody wants to have a seat at table. Cut back to minimum

If stand-alone committee, composition may be differnt.

Kurt: question roles of SSAC, and if so shoudlbve related to TLD

Martin: could be need to bring in laisons> Alternaitve: make activities as transparant as possible ,and let CSC engage with community

Only in cases where confidentiallity is needed, less transparancy.

Different reporting procedures, does not mean 3 different entities/platforms . All 3 cusotmer groups will have interest in reporting. CSC could be shared among all 3 groups.

Staphanie: rationale for at minimum liaisosns, but potentialluy to be build out

Martin : from earlier iscussion on E. Agreement approach by Sarah for g.

Next steps : porvide update to sections

What is missing?

Donna: check within RFP 3 on CSC.More a check on whether there is something missing.

Martin: process for registry to discuss changes/updates SLE commitmentt

Who should organise?

All to update there text in next 24 hours, and put in format that is expected

Bernie: version 2.2. proposal has a akind of template

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150316/21be0449/attachment-0001.html>