March 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #29 17 March
by Brenda Brewer March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #29 - 17 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891803 Action Items Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis) Action: What is the origin of the text in v.2.2 section III.A.1.1 now and what guidance has NTIA &/or ICG already issued. Action: All DTs aim to produce drafts for F2F by 18:00 UTC Monday Action: Call for volunteers and call for team lead COMPLETE (Grace): Add Erick to the DT-M mailing list Action (staff): relocate periodic review function and assess where it fits in the Draft proposal Action (Staff): Add Red Team at end of DT list to to examine whether there are any issues with respect to meeting NTIA's criteria, particularly with respect to security and stability and prevention of capture. This is a particular form of stress testing Action (Paul): send revised text to CWG for section 7.ii of the Principles Action (Martin): complete discussion on Principles on mailing list (including 7.ii. and footnote 1) Notes Seun is on audio only 1. Opening Remarks Great to see CWG embracing DT work Need good sprint from now on (to finish developing the proposal) 2. Proposal 2.2 * * Chairs realize that there is an issue with the short notice with which documents are circulated (24h notice). This is due in part because of the fast pace of meetings and work. Would be great to include content from RFP subgroup work into the draft, specifically RFP4 and RFP5 that were led by Robert and Cheryl Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis) * Milton asks question about text in section III.A.1.1. * Jaap has indications that the numbers proposal is not detailed enough (heard in Singapore) * Overarching question: Is CWG going in the right direction in terms of implementation detail? Action: What is the origin of the text in v.2.2 section III.A.1.1 now and what guidance has NTIA &/or ICG already issued. * Note (Milton): ICG has reviewed the numbers and protocols proposals and has not raised any questions about their level of detail) * Jari calls for all discussions on proposals to be public. ICG has discussed the 'level of detail' question * DT-L title could be changed to "separation mechanics" Staff note: DT-L had changed their title to 'IANA Functions - Transition Plan Actions' since the start of their work <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SyfZ_Yb6AitLzFOwmPZeLmzv8deTFMwQ-GT5jyk…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SyfZ_Yb6AitLzFOwmPZeLmzv8deTFMwQ-GT5jyk… 3. Design Teams a. Istanbul cut-off on Monday 18:00 UTC Action: All DTs aim to produce drafts for F2F by 18:00 UTC Monday b. Update on DT-A (Paul Kane) * * This is the Service Level Expectations group. * Will have document for comment/discussion in Istanbul * Got statistics from TLDs about interactions with IANA (IANA is performing well and generally responsive within minutes). * Group is working on documenting the status quo with real-world analysis * Difference between SLA and SLE: SLA requires two parties to proactively agree. If the 'internal' model is proposed, then there will not be two parties for the 'agreement'. The SLE sets a threshold and standard for performance. Effect is the same. * Where will group be at the end of the week? The document will be 80% concluded. The document is likely to be deficient on the issue where there are hostile assignements/reassignments. * Need to consult with CWG to create exhaustive list of missing information / outstanding issues and formally ask NTIA for permission for IANA to release information c. Update on DT-B (Bart Boswinkel on behalf of Allan MacGillivray) DTB will send survey to ccTLD community this week to determine whether an appeals mechanism is needed to address delegation/redelegation, and if so, what requirements are requested? d. Update on DT-C (Donna Austin) * * Hope to have a draft available for discussion in Istanbul. * IANA staff contact and NTIA staff contact have been identified (they are only present for clarification when requested by the group) e. DT-D (Cheryl Langdon-Orr) * * Group has met minimum membership requirements and started to work through template document * It is DT-D's intention to have document ready by Monday deadline (at least for comment) f. DT-F (no lead) Action: Call for volunteers and call for team lead Suggestion from Milton to merge with DT-D. g. DT-L (Matthew Shears on behalf of James Gannon) * * Developed draft over past few days * Still open to volunteers h. DT-M (Chuck Gomes) COMPLETE (Grace): Add Erick to the DT-M mailing list i. DT-N (Avri Doria) Put together a basic template (open for comment on Google docs) Action (staff): relocate periodic review function and assess where it fits in the Draft proposal One of the purposes of working in DTs is to put the Function before the structure. Requirement appears to be missing for periodic review of operational performance -- not sure if this is part of DT-N or not. Action (Staff): Add Red Team at end of DT list to to examine whether there are any issues with respect to meeting NTIA's criteria, particularly with respect to security and stability and prevention of capture. This is a particular form of stress testing 4. Principles Greg raises issue on term used in footnote 1. --> "Unit" may be better term than "entity" Discussion of 7.ii Proposal from GAC was accepted by others who commented on this section, except for Paul Kane. Paul can talk us through on this call or provide new text. Action (Paul): send revised text to CWG for section 7.ii of the Principles Action (Martin): complete discussion on Principles on mailing list (including 7.ii. and footnote 1) 5. Update from Client Committee * * Mailing list composition has been modified to have Client Committee and Sidley only (posting rights). The rest will be observers (no posting rights) * Sidley should post to list regarding progress on FAQs 6. AOB High Intensity 1-2 April -- placeholders will be sent in case needed 7. Closing Remarks See you in Istanbul

1 0

Design Team Content Template
by Marika Konings March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

Dear All, To facilitate the work of the design teams staff has prepared the attached template which has also been used in the current draft to structure the different sections. We hope that this will assist the design teams in structuring their input as well as eventual integration into the proposal. Of course, any comments and/or suggestions for improvements are welcome. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Proposed Agenda for 3/17 call
by Grace Abuhamad March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

Dear all, Please see below the proposed agenda for the call on 17 March at 17:00 UTC. Proposed Agenda 17/3: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Proposal 2.2 3. Design Teams a. Istanbul cut-off on Monday 18:00 UTC b. Update on DT-A (Paul Kane) c. Update on DT-B (Allan MacGillivray) d. Update on DT-C (Donna Austin) e. Status of additional DTs (DT-D; DT-F; DT-L; DT-M; Red team; DT-N) 4. Update from Client Committee 5. AOB a. High Intensity 1-2 April 6. Closing Remarks Outstanding Actions: Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis) Action (Avri): Review the work of the CWG and the communications between CCWG/CWG to ensure that the interdependencies are up to date are they outdated?)

6 6

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft transition plan V2.2
by Brenden Kuerbis March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

Hi, Marika, Thanks, please find my comments attached. -- Brenden --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Post Doctoral Researcher, iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached for your review version 2.2. of the draft > transition plan. Note that in this version: > > - All redline changes from the previous version have been accepted to > facilitate review of the new content. > - As previously indicated, staff has provided proposed language for > sections III.A.1.4.1, III.A.1.4.2 and III.A.1.4.3. Note that we have > organised this content using the following approach: 1) Describe background > / current state, 2) Describe the issues identified as a result of the > transition and rationale for changes, if any, to address the issues > identified, 3) Current language / requirements and proposed revised > language / requirements. The CWG may want to consider whether it would be > helpful if the Design Teams would follow a similar approach as they develop > their proposed content for the draft transition proposal as it will > facilitate consistency across the document as well as guide DT’s with > regard to the information that is expected to be provided by the DT. > - A proposed appendix A has been added which outlines the proposed > changes to the current requirements for DNSSEC in the Authoritative Root > Zone. > > We note that comments have been submitted by Andrew in relation to > sections I and II. Staff is reviewing these comments and will aim to > incorporate these in the next iteration of the draft proposal, unless there > are any concerns or comments with regard to the proposed changes (if so, > please share those with the mailing list). > > To facilitate your review, I’ve attached both a clean and redline > version. > > Best regards, > > Marika > >

2 1

Design Team N - process for developing the template.
by Avri Doria March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

Hi, At today's meeting I volunteered to work on completing the template for Design Team N: Periodic Review of IANA Functions. This is just at the stage of completing the template with all of the minimum required information; The template is in a drive document open to suggestions and comments <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc…> My goal is to have something to send the group by Monday, so I ask anybody who has a viewpoint on what goes into this to check out the drive doc. I have not added anything to the template yet, but will be working on it over the next few days. Hope this is a good way to get this process rolling. thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

4 6

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [DTD Authorization] Welcome Jian-Chuang Chang
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

Minor Updates to the CWG DT-D (Authorization) Proposal reflecting the Membership now *complete* *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 17 March 2015 at 14:47, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear all — Jian Chuang Chang has been added to the DT-D list as a gTLD > registry representative. > > > > _______________________________________________ > dt5 mailing list > dt5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt5 > >

1 0

Proposal document (DRAFT) for DT-D.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

Early stages as yet, but please see attached a draft of the Proposal to formalise DT-D - 'Authorization Function' for consideration to be "taken to the next stage"; Also please note we need at least 1 volunteer for each of the following proposed membership roles :- · At a minimum one gTLD registry representatives with operational knowledge of IANA Functions (Still required) · At a minimum one ccTLD registry representatives with operational knowledge of IANA Functions (Still required) · One IANA staff member (current or former) (Still required) Please respond to this list if you are interested in joining this DT and can fulfil one of the Membership Roles listed above, unless these roles are volunteered for by 2359 UTC Monday 16th March, I will start 'reaching out' to people to encourage them to step up to join :-) Co-Chairs, we look forward to your comments and feedback on this DRAFT, CWG Member and Participants we look forward to your comments, and of course at least 3 volunteers to fill the vacant roles... kindest regards, *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>

5 5

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA DT-C Meeting 16 March
by Brenda Brewer March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

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

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA DT-C Meeting 13 March
by Brenda Brewer March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA DT-C Meeting - 13 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892544 Action Items Work in Google doc Action Item: Donna looks at old documentation, and inform group on relevancy, in relation to scope of DT C Group members to look at and suggest ways to approach items a-I in template. Share in Google docs to allow others of group to chime in * * Staffan item A * Sarah item B * Martin Item C * Stephanie Item D * Kurt Item E * Staffan item F * Sarah Item G * Martin Item H * Stephanie Item I Action Item: Grace set up Google docs Action Item: Call on Monday: time to be determined. Group to be informed by email based on outcome Doodle poll: <http://doodle.com/v9x7x8hc5kzvisfn> http://doodle.com/v9x7x8hc5kzvisfn Notes Archive is public: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/ Members of DT-C CSC include: * Donna Austin is lead * Staffan Jonson * Sarah Falvey * Martin Boyle * Stephanie Duchesneau * Kurt Pritz Kim Davies is potential IANA Liaison Ashley Heineman is potential NTIA Liaison Discussion on next call(s) - 2 calls next week - this time is ok with Martin, Stephanie - martin would like Monday / Friday - Monday could be problematic for Donna See no opposition to Monday and Friday at 16:00 UTC Dividing the work - suggest looking into dependencies in scope template to divide work Functional analysis is a good starting point, but also need to focus on the scope of the DT C template. That is is expectation from co-chairs and DT design Functional analysis: Become clear of what will be carried from RFP 3 discussions Starting with template, to divide work Suggestion: List of that could be handled. Suggest approach for each of the items, settle the list on Monday Comment: Authorization function, If it is in, I do not see it. A volunteer group, should be gate keeper and be able to act swiftly. Putting it on volunteer committee would be dangerous and is not in template. Hard job and opportunity, Identify where should CSCS should play a role Suggest: Operational way ahead. Authorization discussion should not stop progress Start with template and views Preconceived about CSC, Donna volunteers to go back to RFP 3 documents on CSC, and Interim report. Get a sense of what CSC is responsible for.( elevator, 30 minutes pitch) Donna: monitoring of performance Staffan: minimal effort to look at performance, role is instrumental, if acceptable to SLE's and check if IANA performs its technical role (reduce to technical function), in combination with automation, to take away capture idea Sarah: Replaces NTIA technical role, automation is important Martin: There is role of monitoring performance and montoring reports, and reposting back to own communities about performances, and getting back issues, when issues are identified: communities: Registry constuency, ccNSO and Regional ccTLD organisations Role in service audits, monitor that work and audit and re-audit that work There is a role when something goes wrong: contact with Function Operator. CSC should be talking to IANA to put it right, able to escalate ( for example to CEO) Foreword looking role (what is happening ahead) Budget for development Stephanie: agree with all being said. Audit, minimum audit, CSC touch point, empowered to address issues-> start conversation and initiate escalation Kurt: Operation changing by IANA ( see David Conrad email on the list). CSC is charged to design the monitor process: If CSC (quality assurance function. CSCS receives reports, and monitor, Escaltion process should be well documented. Charge CSC with escalation Desing it and then outsourcing it..Independent. ICANN paid for , and CSC select Output of today's call: Action to look at items Work in Google doc Action Item: Donna looks at old documentation, and inform group on relevancy, in relation to scope of DT C Group members to look at and suggest ways to approach items a-I in template. Share in Google docs to allow others of group to chime in * * Staffan item A * Sarah item B * Martin Item C * Stephanie Item D * Kurt Item E * Staffan item F * Sarah Item G * Martin Item H * Stephanie Item I Action Item: Grace set up Google docs Action Item: Call on Monday: time to be determined. Group to be informed by email based on outcome Doodle poll: <http://doodle.com/v9x7x8hc5kzvisfn> http://doodle.com/v9x7x8hc5kzvisfn

1 0

Chair's perspective / summary on Design Teams
by Jonathan Robinson March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

All, Thank-you for the enthusiasm with which you have embraced the Design Teams. As per the call of Thursday last week, we have agreed to free up the DT's from process a little. The chairs will still keep a close eye on this and the relevant steps in the process. But, we are very mindful of the need to make rapid progress ahead of Istanbul and don't want to impede that. So please do go ahead and push on with initial drafting and work for the Priority 1 Teams (Final or Provisional). A good is example of which is DT-L which is nominally on Step 1 but good work is being done to scope and develop the work right away. Staff have assisted in revising the DT list and the latest version of this is attached. Lise and I have made a couple of additional edits and will continue to work with the DT leads, one another and the CWG as a whole to review and develop the work. We are hoping to have the contributions for Istanbul, arising out of the Design Teams available to the CWG by the end of Friday this week (or latest Monday week - 23rd March) Please note that for DT-F, we still require a DT lead (or at minimum a proponent to draft the template) is required as are expressions of interest. Thanks again, Jonathan & Lise

1 0