Dear all,
Please find below the notes taken during the CWG ISTP Call - 31 August @20:00 UTC
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CWG ISTP Call - 31 August @20:00 UTC
Apologies: Becky can only join for first 30 minutes, Maarten Simon
AGENDA
1. Welcome
2. Naming Function Agreement –
ccTLD comments, ICANN and CWG members response
ccNSO Council statement
3. Services agreement, preliminary findings ( Stephen, Becky)
4. IPR – appointment of names community members to CCG
5. AOB
6. Next call
NOTES
1. Welcome
Welcome by the chair. Bart proposed an agenda. Any comments or suggestions?
2. Naming Function Agreement
summary by Becky
GAC principles: reference to them caused concerns. Why? Not formally adopted by ICANN Board, not part of policy development process.
The GAC rep from Norway (Elise Lindeberg), responded to ICANN, asking clarification why this reference to the GAC principles was necessary. Kavouss (.ir) seconded her position and .ch said that the PTI has to do the analysis in any case what applies and what not.
RFC1591 has a status section. Our attempt will not satisfy those 3 GAC members.
Approaches:
1. add them. We need to identify a GAC member who can explain the sensitivities to the 3 aforementioned GAC members
2. eliminate all of the specific references. apply ICANN policies in accordance with ICANN bylaws.
3. ICANN Board makes final call. ccNSO has a rep on the Board. overarching question: what PTI ought to be doing is implementing and managing the technical functions and carrying out ICANN decisions (RFC1591).
Paul
GAC is under misconception of the advice they have given. in option 1 there is no merit. Option 2 is only valid option.
IANA does not apply policies today. only a technical operator. Makes decisions for certain cc's. The goal is to maintain the status quo. Therefor I prefer option 2.
Chris
Where we are now? IANA prepares report re delegation, redelegation. Report brought to the board.
The FoI WG said that whilst it was not ideal that the board gets these reports, but for now it was ok. ccTLD community would come with an alternative in the future. Last place where that sign-off needs to be, is in the PTI. No accountability.
"The PTI needs to apply ICANN policy". What to do if there is a sense that this requirement is not met? no appeals mechanism. no insurance for checks and balances.
EC behind the ICANN board does have the ability to deal with it, if policies are not implemented correctly. Let the Board be the place for now, and let the ccTLD community decide for an alternative in the future.
Paul
Agrees with Chris that it is currently documented that PTI should be decision-making body. PTI has always been a service operator. Where is party that makes decisions? For gTLDs, it is the ICANN Board. But for ccTLDs to invite ICANN board to make a determination, might be problematic. There are parties that do not wish to be subservient to the icann framework or icann board.
If there is uncertainty who the registry manager is, the cc-market in general could suffer. Stability legal regime of where the registry operator is working.
only option 2 is viable: apply ICANN policies in accordance with ICANN bylaws.
Martin
Agrees with many things Paul and Chris said. But he has the issue of how we can hold PTI accountable for its decisions? That is the overall ICANN responsibility. contract with PTI is very important to ICANN. Link to policy fora and accountability measures. Paul made reference to accountability. This is the one thing in the GAC principles that sparked the people to put their hands up. 1.2. national decision making.
I separate myself from Chris his comment of having a ccTLD committee that would be in a position to take away
important issue. there are some ccTLDs not based in the jurisdiction they serve. There are some that do not agree with any decisions from the ccNSO.
oversight decision is coming back to an area where there is an option to reply/appeal/respond to the decisions being made.
PTI has followed due process? was it properly documented? recognize where there are specific issues. Are they significant enough to get more information? We are close to a solution. But there are a number of areas where there are concerns on who has the decision to overrun certain decisions.
Katrina
What do you expect from the ccNSO council? your input is valuable.
Allan
we will talk during this call among others about the ccNSO council statement
Peter Van Roste
going back to the FOI and the naming and functions service agreement, would it suffice to say "where applicable", delete the sentence after the "applicable"
No need to limit it.
Peter asked Annebeth to get in touch with Elise, who apologised for putting the GAC principles and the FOI on the same level. She would be happy to have the reference to GAC principles, but no specific reference to 1.3.
Chris
the FOI has many different members, spent 5 years, in a delicate dance, to come out in a position interpreting RFC1591. left a number of open questions. My concern is that moving the function from ICANN to PTI, it could hamper the consensus that was reached through the FOI. the PTI should be an operational body that does what it is told. PTI can be held accountable through its contract. Indeed, but how? What mechanism does the EC have? it can force the board to hold PTI accountable.
Lise
we are not moving anything into the PTI. important to make a reference to the cc-special situation.
Katrina asked what Becky needs from the council. CWG meets tomorrow. partially this topic will be dealt. People on this call should attend that call as well. Please make comments to the public consultation on this. New redlined version is coming out soon.
Should be out before the call tomorrow.
Jay
PTI has clear set of rules and processes. Well documented. Clear processes, and reporting mechanism. Strong accountability measures. I do not see where the board has accountability measures that can be powerful. Too broad to apply in this case.
Chris
Current situation: redelegation, revocation. staff makes report. comes to ICANN board. board passes a resolution (amber-green lights). the board does not want to do this, but ended up having this role. FOI said that in an ideal world there would be a ccTLD based entity that would be the sign-off approval, by consent. status quo was the board. Because ccTLDs have a representation to the board. Board consults with ccNSO Board members.
Concerned that this decision, the approval mechanism is deferred to a smaller board, where the community has no way to deal with. PTI board should be simply a service provider. this implies they should not have a decision-making role. They should only follow instructions. policy decisions should remain within the ICANN construct.
Paul
- agrees in part with what Chris said. Fundamentals of naming services agreement.
Service that the customers enjoy is paramount. external parties should not be involved.
- How do we handle the GAC principles? I need answers from this group. We need to have the FOI in there, but if there is contention, we come back to option 2 becky explained.
- Who is the authority? ICANN made a typo error. just for root zone maintainer. we should mention they have a limited scope.
- What about the fees? CWG reps, should they be silent?
2.1. ccTLD comments, ICANN and CWG member’s response.
2.2. ccNSO Council statement
go to specific comments. What should we be saying? here is an example. there is a preference for this language, but there is an acknowledgement that we can live with spmething a little bit lighter. We would prefer this, but we could live with this. As an advice.
Stephen
on what basis can you make the statement that we can live with this? FOI is board policy.
Alan
the policies should be reflected in the bylaws.
Paul
We have the end in sight. highly inappropriate that the GAC members raised this, the GAC principles 2005. the 2002 GAC principles were archived.
only option is to say that policies and ICANN bylaws should be applied to those parties that are impacted. We win without being confrontational.
Bart
good thing is we have a lot of councillors on the call today. this is just a format to ensure the agreed-upon points are captured with support of ccNSO council.
Intention for tomorrow's call: this is a moving target. We know there are some issues to be resolved the next days.
Discussion is helpful to the councilors and for those tomorrow on the CWG call, to coordinate their approach. We will monitor it, and et back to the group as soon as we have something.
Alan
2 other issues raised by Paul. Any comments?
Bart
more a question for Lise. Paul refers to service agreement. What is the current status of this service agreement?
will it go to similar kind of public comment as is currently the case for the functions agreement?
Lise
discussed between ICANN legal and Sidley. ready to be presented to the group. service agreement is not sent out for public comment. Needs to be tracked through CWG work. it is public. but comments need to be made to the CWG.
Bart
envisaged end date for service agreement?
Lise
when CWG decides they agree on the version presented to them.
Not sent out for public consultation, because it is a technical service agreement between ICANN and PTI. that is the reason it does not go to public consultation.
3. Services agreement, preliminary findings (Stephen, Becky)
Stephen
review service agreement
no technical comments possible until an up to date copy of the service agreement with issue list will be provided. needs to be in Stephen his inbox in next couple of hours.
Paul
CWG reps needs guidance on how hard to hit these issues: fees, confidentiality.
Chris
CWG call tomorrow. do we have a plan on how to handle that call?
4. IPR – appointment of names community members to CCG
5. AOB
6. Next call
Secretariat will propose a call next week.
Thank you.
