[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA DT-C Meeting 16 March

[Brenda Brewer]

Dear all, 

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA DT-C Meeting - 16 March are available here:
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892769>
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892769

 


Action Items


Action Item:  all; within 24 h review contributions and make update 

Action Item:  Donna; to prepare analysis, RFP 3, Avri proposal and Auda, and get back to group
Thursday morning UTC 

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

Action Item:  Bart: Doodle poll for Friday 20 March afternoon UTC (15 or 16.00) 

Action Item:  Automation discussion to be started on list; 

 


Notes


 

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

Question how to use expertise? 

Martin: agrees with both Ashley 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 participation on email list 

Staffan input section a) of Template 

Marked in blue 

Not included reference to MRT 

Donna: One of the challenges: unknown whether there will be CSC /MRT structure or contract c. SO
question develop as stand-alone 

Agreement of DT members: assume it is a standalone committee 

What SSR role? How does it relate to monitoring   

Suggest to make comments at sections where related 

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 liaisons also reasonable  

Liaison-ship of SSAC and ISOC are questioned 

Suggested wording: invited to participate for specific deliberations 

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) 

Explanation of table Section B template 

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

Row 2: Added criteria, for transparency 

Row 3: Added criteria, for transparency 

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

or should CSC do it once established. Is responsibility to define template of reports 

Stefanie: This covered in section d 

Donna: what kind of document to put forward for Istanbul 

Think a view of what are relevant aspects and should 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 understand systemic failures, escalation 

Item 6? CSC members should engage and relay to own community of origin 

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

Stephanie, Section D template. 

Assumption, 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 it be appropriate 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 delegations and re-delegations of ccTLDs 

gTLD reports: more standardized. Assumption, no changes.  

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

Ideas about riggers to make changes? 

Description of procedures for changes 

Bernie: Does process include, double checking with relevant customer community? 

Stephanie: community check is not included yet 

gTLD  

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

Kurt: gTLDs are not re-delegated. To be checked 

Ongoing process control  <http://monitoring.to/> monitoring.to identify if issues are occurring. 

maybe part 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 on that day. Risk of
overloading, if more continuous 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 discussion, Note NTIA does have resources in place


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

Martin: suspicious of errors/failures that need more then monthly progress ( ongoing) 

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

Root zone management. 

Requirement only if new services are provided. 

Question whether monthly or instantaneous. Assumption  

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 there a level "zero". Yes you failed SLE requirement, but there are special
circumstance -> new column: initial 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 operators and IANA on annual report, 

Relates with Stephanie's point.  

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

Kurt: updates on upcoming changes, include in monthly update 

Stephanie: 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 different.  

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

Martin: could be need to bring in liaisons> Alternative: make activities as transparent as possible
,and let CSC engage with community 

Only in cases where confidentiality is needed, less transparency.  

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

Stephanie: rationale for at minimum liaisons, but potentially to be build out 

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

Next steps : provide 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 commitment  

Who should organized? 

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

Bernie: version 2.2. proposal has a kind of template 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150316/e9c747f1/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/20150316/e9c747f1/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/20150316/e9c747f1/smime-0001.p7s>