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

Mon Mar 28 15:27:29 UTC 2016

Thank you for the suggestion, Avri. We will look into it.

Trang

-----Original Message-----
From: <iotf-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of avri doria via IOTF
<iotf at icann.org>
Reply-To: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
Date: Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:35 PM
To: "iotf at icann.org" <iotf at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IOTF] IOTF Call #2 - Meeting Notes (25 March 2016 @ 14:00
UTC)

>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 we¹re going to have meeting
>> notes detailed at this level, that the statements be attributed to the
>> speakers? Otherwise it¹s 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 it¹s 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 today¹s IOTF call. The
>>> presentation material and AC room recordings are now posted
>>> at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation under ³Meetings &
>>> Work Sessions² 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 don¹t 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 don¹t 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>IOTF mailing list
>IOTF at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iotf