Dear all,
Please find included the informal notes from
CWG ISTP Call - 6 September @20:00 UTC
Kind regards,
Please note that discussion around 4.7 is continuing on-line
Bart
Informal Notes
--------------------------------
Apologies: Becky Burr, Katrina Sataki
Agenda
1. Welcome & Roll call
All in chat are in room
2. Naming Function Agreement –
A: Open issues Naming Function Agreement
Current status following the 1 September CWG call (Included is overview, of items re IANA Naming Functions Agreement as shared with CWG in preparation of the 1 September CWG call). During this ISTC call run over the items and assess whether CWG reached agreement or issue is still under discussion / open.
Discussion: no agreement on wording
Discussion on call focuses on 4.7 in the Naming Function Agreement
Stephen Deerhake
(text suggested by Becky): Section 4.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders. Contractor shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component of the IANA Naming Function that have been defined, or after the date of this Agreement are further defined, by (a) the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), and (b) RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ (“RFC 1591”) as interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies and Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and Redelegation of Country-Code Top Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 (“FOI”). In addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable, consult the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (“GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles”). Contractor shall publish documentation pertaining to the implementation of these policies and principles on the IANA Webs
Other comment change consult for apply
Awaiting further draft
Lise: specific wording is the one list above
Issue Paul raised for discussion: Paul email find a mail how to deal with it.
Paul Kane: what he tries he does to do ensure position of all ccTLD whetehr member or non-member of ccNSO and ensure no decision by a non-accountable body like PTI. Framework should respect the Bylaws and constrains the way in which PTI delivers service to the community with accountability.
On another list discussion
Considerable discussion CWG call . CWG did not agree on words.
Regardless, CWG does not do the words. Specific input through Council or through CWG.
Wording in next version is Becky Burr version (see above). To have clarity about limitation
Martin: Action on Paul to say whether he is in line with Becky's wording. Flag where there are deficiencies
Reasonable approach within ccNSO. Limitations in ccNSO are defined in Bylaws. Put words in front of CWG and then put in front of lawyers on how to include.
Lise: Wording needs to be discussed and agreed before hand
Wording put before group: Contractor shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component of the IANA Naming Function that have been defined, or after the date of this Agreement are further defined, by (a) the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”) as they apply to ccNSO members ,
Group on the call no objections to proposed language.
PTI needs to accoutanbility, ensure that PTI can not take decisions without any accountability. More holistic view needed.
B. Status Issues identified Becky, Paul and Stephen
Need and substance Council statement in support of the work of ccTLDs participating CWG. Items suggested by the ccTLDs participating in CWG work accepted All considered "closed"
no need to revisit, with exception of full agreement on 4.7.
3. Services agreement, preliminary findings, if any
Stephen: Why discrepancies between documents (Sidley comments refer to version of agreement not shared with CWG to date). Suggestion to contact Trang or Yuko
Lise no new version yet
Paul K: Service Agreement needs to be reviewed carefully parameters, and hooks for details that will be filled in later. Need to be scrutinize. Issue with discussion is tight deadline
and no public comment
Request to feed in information to this group. Stephen will inform Group as best as he can on his findings. Discussion Services Agreement major item next call (see below)
4. IPR – appointment of names community members to CCG
IPR is going to be with IETF. Council will be established that will advise. This council will have 9 members (3 from Naming community, 3 from RIR community, 3 IETF community) to
advise Trust on how IANA IPR if and when necessary.
Tricky because you need to be legal entity, and for various (legal) reasons ICANN needs to be contractor.
The CWG needs to find a way on how to choose the 3 members.
Sidley is working on instructions for ICANN and others. It will be handed over from CWG to chairs of the chartering organisations.
Allan: beyond point of signatories, naming community needs to select members.
Paul: the CCG (IANA Community coordination group): trust for holding he name. Although it can not hold the name. Trustees need to be appointed to make to it work. In Paul's opinion chartering orgs need to select the role of trustees. Highly unlikely people need ever to do anything.
Lise: Be aware of using term trustee in relation to CCG, better call them CCG members. CCG will be advising the IETF trust.
Suggestion is to suggest members from Chartering orgs.
Not issue for ccTLDs
5. AOB
Open issue 4.7.
Present amendment language to group.
Use ISTACC * Thursday 8 September 19.00 UTC to inform this group and others on call on latest.
6. Next call
Tuesday 13 September 20.00 UTC
Main topic: Services agreement
Annex: Agenda CWG call upcoming Thursday
1. Status Update (Chairs)
2. Implementation Update
· Staff update
3. Key Issues (with Sidley)
· Naming Functions Agreement
· Services Agreement
· IANA IPR
4. Client Committee
5. AOB