[IOTF] IOTF Call #2 - Meeting Notes (25 March 2016 @ 14:00 UTC)

Sun Mar 27 20:35:09 UTC 2016

Hi,

We could also get a transcription from the recording and use notes just
for important points that need to be captured.

avri

On 25-Mar-16 18:55, Alissa Cooper via IOTF wrote:
> Hi Yuko,
>
> Could I suggest that going forward, if we’re going to have meeting
> notes detailed at this level, that the statements be attributed to the
> speakers? Otherwise it’s quite difficult to understand what happened
> in the meeting or who had which position. I had trouble with this when
> reading the previous minutes for the call that I missed.
> Alternatively, if it’s easier to write a paragraph summarizing the
> discussion and outcomes without attribution, that would work as well
> and would likewise be better than the listing of individual statements
> without attribution.
>
> One comment below.
>
>> On Mar 25, 2016, at 9:51 AM, Yuko Green via IOTF <iotf at icann.org
>> <mailto:iotf at icann.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear members of the IOTF,
>>  
>> Please see below the meeting notes from today’s IOTF call. The
>> presentation material and AC room recordings are now posted
>> at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation under “Meetings &
>> Work Sessions” section. Please note, as a result of the connectivity
>> issues between AdobeConnect and phone bridge we experienced today,
>> the audio was not recorded in either AC room or phone bridge. The
>> issue is now resolved and will not affect the future calls.
>>  
>> *****
>>  
>> *IOTF Call #2*
>> *25 March 2016 @ 14:00 UTC*
>>  
>> Please note that this meeting is being recorded. 
>>  
>> If you would like to review the last call(s), the recordings and
>> presentation materials are posted publicly
>> here: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation
>>  
>> *_Agenda:_*
>> 1. Opening Remarks (Lise)
>> 2. Implementation Items (Trang)
>> PTI Structure
>> CSC Charter
>> 3. AOB
>> 4. Closing Remarks (Lise)
>>  
>>  
>> *_Notes:_*
>> Recording started 8 minutes in as the meeting started late due to
>> audio issue in AC room. Audio is only available via phone bridge.
>>  
>> *PTI Structure*
>>  
>> Russ H in chat "Every place the figure says "IAOC" should say "IAB""
>>  
>> Moving all 3 functions:
>> Multiple contracts between PTI and ICANN due to different SLA,
>> complaint mechanism, escalation processes.
>>  
>> Numbers and protocols services will be sub-contracted to PTI as they
>> will continue to have contracts with ICANN.
>>  
>> If intent of the proposal is to cause minimum change to maintain the
>> operational stability, then this shows the extent of changes between
>> moving names only or 3 functions.
>>  
>> Consensus of the community was to move all 3 functions after
>> extensive discussions among operational communities. The proposal is
>> clear that all 3 functions should move to PTI.
>>  
>> Contracts and oversight should be separated as it's up to ICANN how
>> it handles the sub-contracts with PTI.
>>  
>> Proposal's intent was to make PTI to host the whole IANA department
>> and that will mean minimum change
>>  
>> Splitting the IANA department may cost more
>>  
>> Operational security and stability should be the most important thing
>> and moving all 3 functions will achieve that. Administrative hardship
>> should be secondary concern.
>>  
>> It is clear from the comments that the intent of proposal is to move
>> all 3 functions.
>>  
>> Moving all 3 functions may cause separation more complexed.
>>  
>> Proposal is unclear about separation because we don't know what will
>> cause the separation or remedies would be.
>>  
>> IFR is the one who will recommend separation but IFR is Names
>> oriented. But other communities have comparable methods to trigger
>> separation.
>>  
>> IFR is not the separation mechanism, but SCWG is.
>>  
>> Implementation plan of moving all 3 functions into PTI needs to be
>> presented to the whole CWG
>
> I don’t understand the statement above or recall it being discussed on
> the call. I do not believe the plan to move all three functions to PTI
> needs to be presented to the CWG. The CWG already agreed to it a long
> time ago. On the other hand, if this is about the specific details of
> how the move will happen, this sort of presentation seems reasonable.
> But I don’t think we discussed that today.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>> but we need to solve the other portions of the PTI matter, such as
>> moving the staff into PTI. We need ICANN legal's memo to discuss that
>> and come to decision.
>>  
>> *CSC Charter*
>> The list has been previously shared with Donna Austin, the lead of
>> the DT-C, but she's unable to join the call to share her thought today.
>>  
>> 1. Is ccNSO/GNSO approval on whole composition one-time only or ongoing?
>> Donna's understanding was that there is no approval by ccNSO/GNSO in
>> case of reappointment due to recall. However, any reappointment due
>> to term expiration would require ccNSO/GNSO approval.
>>  
>> ccNSO/GNSO should have the ability to question the reappointment for
>> recall, but not need to approve.
>>  
>> --> Bring it up to CWG for discussion
>>  
>> 2. Required skill sets of the CSC members
>> Need to provide the specific skill sets to the appointing ACs/SOs so
>> they may appoint the members/liaisons appropriately and ccNSO/GNSO
>> can approve accordingly.
>>  
>> ICANN staff is requested to draft a first cut on skill set requirements
>>  
>> Any additional clarification we gain from this discussion will
>> resides in operational procedure documents or something instead of
>> changing the charter itself.
>>  
>> Instead of IOTF, ICANN should perhaps approach OCs to define the
>> skill set requirements.
>>  
>> ICANN staff to draft the first requirements but then bring to the OCs
>> before finalizing.
>>  
>> *AOB*
>> 28 March Monday is public holiday for most people so no call will be
>> held 
>>  
>> Next meeting to be held on 30 March Wednesday
>>  
>> Doodle Poll to be sent out for Wed 1900 UTC
>>  
>> *_Action Items:_*
>> 1. ICANN staff to draft the first requirements for CSC membership
>> skill sets but then bring to the OCs before finalizing.
>>  
>>  
>> *Yuko Green*
>> Strategic Programs Manager
>> Global Domains Division
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>  
>> Direct Line:  +1 310 578 8693
>> Mobile: +1 310 745 1517
>> E-mail:  yuko.green at icann.org <mailto:yuko.green at icann.org>
>> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> IOTF mailing list
>> IOTF at icann.org <mailto:IOTF at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iotf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IOTF mailing list
> IOTF at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iotf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus