- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #28 12 March
by Brenda Brewer March 13, 2015

March 13, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #28 - 12 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890442 Action Items Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis) Action (Grace): Add Matthew and James to DT-L Action (Cheryl): start to work on DT-D (Jaap as well) Action (Staff): Put out call for lead for DT-F Action (all): sign up for DTs on mailing list Action (Grace): add Chuck, Avri, and Staffan to DT-M 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 (Avri): Start to work on DT-N (provisional lead) Action (Martin): work with key principles people to resolve before Tuesday call Action (Avri): Review the work of the CWG and the communications between CCWG/CWG to ensure that the interdependencies are up to date Notes 1. Opening Remarks F2F is a little over a week -- 7 day hard sprint DTs need to work hard and fast (please get involved) 2. Proposal 2.1 * Goal is have proposal comparable to the other proposals and responds to RFP * Kurt Pritz suggested DT map (uploaded in AC): goes through 4 oversight tasks -- monitor IANA performance; authorization function; approve IANA operations changes; designates IANA provider. * For 'monitor IANA performance' looks like CWG can address the whole column * Sections 4&5 are light. Would be helpful if the RFP leads could assist in filling those sections out since there was work done on these sections pre-Singapore Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis) 3. Design Teams a. Finalize DT list Action (Grace): Add Matthew and James to DT-L b. Update on DT-A (Paul Kane) --> Not on the line c. Update on DT-B (Allan MacGillivray) d. Update on DT-C (Staffan Jonson) Staff can assist wil drafting intial content so that groups can edit/modify e. Commission additional DTs Action (Cheryl): start to work on DT-D (Jaap as well) Action (Staff): Put out call for lead for DT-F Action (all): sign up for DTs on mailing list Action (Grace): add Chuck, Avri, and Staffan to DT-M 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 (Avri): Start to work on DT-N (provisional lead) Action (staff): rename DT-L for greater clarity 7 day sprint! 4. Principles Note: Andrew Sullivan made changes but they are not included in this version Outstanding issues: * 7.2 * 10 * footnote 1 paragraph 5.ii Action (Martin): work with key principles people to resolve before Tuesday call 5. Update from Client Committee * Questions for Sidley (law firm) should be sent through CWG mailing list (marked for Client committee) * Role of the Committee is an interface between the CWG and the Law firm * Overwhelming support for having 1 or more of the Sidley team present in Istanbul (94% in quick CWG poll) * Two objectives: 1) observing and getting sense of group; 2) have substantive interaction with the group 6. AOB Avri: Do we need another communication to the Accountability CCWG, refining any of our issues and dependencies? Action (Avri): Review the work of the CWG and the communications between CCWG/CWG to ensure that the interdependencies are up to date As a reminder, the past note, with some comments pending from January is at < <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c4Eab_fZMCQeeYvhy8OcE6f_PqhGza2qW4-UgFn… > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c4Eab_fZMCQeeYvhy8OcE6f_PqhGza2qW4-UgFn…> it is opne for comments/suggested edits. 7. Closing Remarks: Next CWG IANA call is Tuesday, 17 March @ 17:00 UTC

2 1

For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview
by Marika Konings March 13, 2015

March 13, 2015

Dear All, As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please find attached version 2.1 of the draft transition proposal which includes: * References in section 3 to Design Teams * New section covering .INT * Placeholders in section 3 where staff is developing text for CWG review * Some minor other edits Please share any comments / edits you may have with the list. For your convenience, you will also find the latest version of the design teams status overview which includes some of the improvements discussed during yesterday's meeting. Best regards, Marika

4 9

Red Team
by Sivasubramanian M March 12, 2015

March 12, 2015

Hello Please include me as a member of the Red Team. I also wish to help in writing section 4 of the document. Thank you Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

1 0

Principles: revised draft 9 March
by Martin Boyle March 12, 2015

March 12, 2015

Dear Colleagues, I attach a revised draft of the principles document based on our calls on 3 & 5 March. I believe we have a text that is pretty much in its final form, with only one outstanding issue. Looking at the remaining highlighted changes: 5.ii & iii: These are mainly editorial and have been discussed without opposition on recent calls. 5.iv footnote: We had comments about the meaning of consensus in the footnote. I do not think that defining consensus is in the remit of this document, but is part of the considerations of any entity that we establish. Hence I have added, "Conditions for consensus will need to be agreed appropriate for the group" to make this clear. 5.vi: As I said when I flagged this paragraph as of concern, I am inherently uneasy about a principle that is essentially optional and where it might need to be re-written because of subsequent choices that we make. Either it is a principle or it isn't. I believe that we need to understand the implications of what we are trying to say, so I am taking editor's right to propose a new formulation that should be independent of subsequent decisions. 6.ii: Was agreed as not being a principle last week. 7.i: Editing agreed last week. 7.ii: We took this off-line. There has been some progress in discussions with Paul and Elise. I have made a drafting proposal to both for wording that tries to take into account the concerns they have expressed. However, this paragraph needs to be held in abeyance until we have heard the views of both. 8.ii: In discussion with Erick, we have identified a compromise that moves away from saying anything about the policy authority and who it might or might not be. The proposed wording ("In particular, the IANA functions operator should not impose any additional requirements on the registry unless they are directly and demonstrably linked to global security, stability and resilience of the DNS.") turns this around to prevent the IANA functions operator making unilateral decisions that impact the ccTLD except in (rare) cases of global security, stability and resilience. Given the delicate balance behind this text, I hope that others will find this formulation acceptable and I thank Erick for his support in finding this compromise. 9.i: A minor point here that was discussed last week. The wording is not necessary to the text, but does make it clearer that i. is about separability now and iii. says we would need to include separability for all future IANA functions operators. 10: A reasonable edit proposed by Mary last week: no objections have been raised. Hence I would hold 5.ii-iv, 6.ii, 7.i, 9.i and 10 to be agreed text if there are no objections. 5.iv: I suggest we use the new wording unless there is significant opposition. 7.ii: This has to stay in abeyance subject to agreement by Elise (in discussion with the GAC) and by Paul Kane. 8.ii: Again I suggest we use the proposed wording unless there is significant opposition. I look forward to comments on this approach, and please do flag early any difficulties you might have with any of the proposals. Best Martin

6 10

CSC Design Team membership
by Marika Konings March 11, 2015

March 11, 2015

Dear All, On behalf of Lise and Jonathan, I would like to confirm the current membership of the CSC Design Team, namely: * Donna Austin (gTLD Registry) - lead * Staffan Johnson (ccTLD Registry) - co-lead * Stephanie Duchesneau - gTLD Registry * Martin Boyle - ccTLD registry * Kurt Pritz - GNSO * Sarah Falvey - gTLD Registry As you may recall, the proposed membership for this design team was as follows: * At a minimum two gTLD registry representatives with operational knowledge of IANA Functions and current reporting requirements * At a minimum two ccTLD registry representatives with operational knowledge of IANA Functions and current reporting requirements * One IANA staff member (current or former) * One non-direct customer representative with operational knowledge of IANA Functions and current reporting requirements * One liaison from NTIA to verify NTIA's current responsibilities Donna has reached out to IANA Staff as well as NTIA so we anticipate confirmation of representatives to fill those slots shortly. As a reminder, the mailing list archives for this DT can be found at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Design Team Map
by Kurt Pritz March 11, 2015

March 11, 2015

During the last CWG call, a question was raised to the effect of: have we considered how the Design Teams' scope might overlap and how do the design teams' scope map to the IANA Oversight tasks that we are trying to replace? I raised the point a point in the chat that in certain cases there would be overlap or that two design teams would be working on the same NTIA task and, in those cases, the Design Team Leads should work closely together. An example would be the SLE team and the CSC team both are focusing on monitoring IANA performance. To help understand the areas of overlap, I made the attached graphic that maps the Design Team titles to the NTIA tasks currently performed. It might be constructive in determining how to formulate a final proposal and where different Design Teams should work together or where Design Teams can be combined. I hope you find it useful. Regards, Kurt

1 0

Proposed Agenda Meeting #28 on 12 March at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad March 11, 2015

March 11, 2015

Dear all, Below is the proposed agenda for Meeting #28 on 12 March at 11:00 UTC. Agenda 12/03: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Proposal 2.X.X 3. Design Teams a. Finalize DT list b. Update on DT-A (Paul Kane) c. Update on DT-B (Allan MacGillivray) d. Update on DT-C (Donna Austin) e. Comission additional DTs 4. Principles 5. Update on Client Committee 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks Best, Grace

1 0

Updated version of the Status Overview for the CWG DTs
by Jonathan Robinson March 11, 2015

March 11, 2015

All, Please see attached for a status update on the Design Teams in preparation for our call tomorrow. Lise and I have reviewed the whole DT landscape and the current status is reflected in the document. Please note that it contains the following: . A status for each DT per the model of the step-by-step process which has been referenced in Annex A. . A note section as part of the index to provide additional comments as needed . New prospective DTs added o L (IANA Function Separation Mechanism), o M (Escalation mechanisms beyond CSC) and o N (Periodic Review of IANA Functions). . An updated description for .INT DT to match description in draft transition proposal. . An 'expression of interest field', currently only in the Authorization Function DT-D (as other expression of interests come in, we'll create the same for other DTs). Where a priority is set as final, that is the priority we have agreed. Where it is provisional, that is indicative pending further detail on the DT emerging. I look forward to reviewing this with you on the tomorrow. Thanks, Jonathan

9 15

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #27 10 March
by Brenda Brewer March 10, 2015

March 10, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #27 - 10 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890439 Action Items * 5Mar Action (Martin): Modify Principles as discussed on 5 March call and recirculate draft for CWG review. --> will remain open for next meeting * 5Mar Action (Paul): Review DT template to ensure that DT-A scope is aligned. * Action (Grace): circulate Thune letter to CWG * Action (Marika) add "suggested by" to each DT in DT list document * Action (Bernie/Marika): will send updated draft V.2 within 24h at the latest * Action (Grace/Allan): Finialize setup for DT-B (email, Wiki, calls) * Action (Chairs): include final date for DTs as part of overall planning Notes Rick Boucher on audio-only 1. Opening Remarks * Objective is to build out the draft proposal * Need as much help as possible to achieve our objective * Bernie is working on updated version which will include placeholders for DTs 2. Legal Advice Introduction of Sidley Austin to the CWG * Holly Gregory (governance expert) speaking on behalf of Sidley team * Large team, but will work to stay as lean/efficient as possible * Ed McNicholas -- privacy, information technology * Rick Boucher -- government strategies * Cam Kerry -- former acting secretary of US Dept. Commerce * Sharon Flanagan -- CA law and corporate governance * Josh Hofheimer -- structural; non-profit experience * Other expertise available as needed Action (Grace): circulate Thune letter to CWG Q&A with Sidley * Keenly aware of the current contractual framework into the something that has legitimacy globally * Sidley hopes to address many of the questions in the CWG document in Istanbul * Would only take on accountability-related work if the direction came from the CCWG (meeting with them later today to have this conversation) * Core task is to advise on legal issues as CWG explores solutions for transition and that's what the Sidley team is built for. Rick and Cam have experience in the political world and can help explain, down the road, what the issues will be with that aspect. 3. Design Teams * Concern with the utility of the DT method * Concern with the number of volunteers/expertise available for the number of DTs propose * DTs are not all work in progress -- they are on the list because they have been proposed Action (Marika) add "suggested by" to each DT Action (Bernie/Marika): will send updated draft V.2 within 24h at the latest Update on DT-A (Paul Kane) --> Paul is not on the call Update on DT-B (Allan MacGillivray) --> looking at doing a survey with the ccTLD community. Met for the first time on Monday. The current members are Maarten, Martin and Elise (observer). Action (Grace/Allan): Finialize setup for DT-B (email, Wiki, calls) Update on DT-C (Donna Austin) --> approved and call for volunteers underway 4. AOB Put target "termination" or report dates on DTs? Action (Chairs): include final date for DTs as part of overall planning 5. Closing Remarks Project plan to be addressed further on Thursday Objective to keep work going as fast as possible The next CWG IANA Stewardship call is 12 March 11:00 - 13:00 UTC

2 1

How the Designs Teams relate to the proposal
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 10, 2015

March 10, 2015

Hello all, I heard Chuck's question on the call regarding how the design teams relate to the final proposal and Jonathan's answer - but unfortunately I could not talk & had no Internet. I think it's important to find detailed placeholder locations in the proposal (including chapter/section numbers) for the text that each design team will draft so that we can, when the time comes, just paste it there. It will also help in drafting the text so that it flows well with the other sections. Kindest regards, Olivier

1 0