Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-C Meeting 23 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893658 Notes Notes DT C call 23 March 2015 1. Roll call All except Sarah at the call Discussion Overview Document Overview section Section 1. Agreed Section 2. New section. Agreed Section 3. Agreed Ensure in the charter that the CSC is mandated to develop its own working methods Section 4. Agreed Section 5. Suggestion: CSCS and NTIA run in parallel for a while. Hand-over responsibilities of operational oversight role If reporting is different, the reporting would be burdensome. Face in approach, to avoid smooth transition. Agreed but need to take into consideration issues identified above Section 6: Martin comment: avoid to be unduly prescriptive Suggestion: 6, 7, 8 and 9 are linked / should be clustered with section 1 Action re-number section Kim: In which circumstances, should you endeavor to change. Martin: leave the world "will" in. Kurt: Grouping them together supported Include word usually -> shall Other groups will be talking about escalation. At the same time core is cooperation between IANA and CSC. Donna: reference to escalation is included in section 10. Martin: At the end of cooperative process, and only if this fails, escalation process will be pursued. Proposal is to separate it. Staffan: DT M proposal, quite detailed proposal on escalation process. Donna: need to find middle ground Section 7: Agreed Section 8: Agreed Section 9: new. Staffan: do we need to decide it should be "annually"? Donna: to have a regular meeting Stephanie: Annual is included to distinguish from 4. Kurt porposal: The CSC shall hold a formal regular (at least annual) meeting. Action update language Martin: The CSC shall hold a formal regular (typically annualy) meeting.. Kurt suggestion adopted The CSC shall hold a formal regular (at least annual) meeting. Action update language Section 10: Donna: the reason to move away from escalation, the word "esclation" comes with baggage. At the same time needs to be adressed. Martin: Will propose some language 10 bis or 11 bis could read "should resolution processes not remedy failings in the provision of the IANA functions service, CSC can escalate the issue in the process identified bt DT-M Donna: CWG is used to the world "escalation" Martin: concern is that "escaltion" goes out of CSC. Remedial action should stay within the CSC. Staffan: CSC is initial point of escalation. Donna: 1. direct customer can come to CSC 2. Overall management of the IANA, based on reporting. These two remedial should be clearly distinguished. Individual TLD could seek remedial assitance from CSC, which is dealt with in Section 11 Donna: Revisit section 10 and 11, following conversation with DT M Action: Revisit section 10 and 11, following conversation with DT M Section 12. Financial issue Concern raised, some stakeholder group want to participate in CSC. Stephanie: need for a narrow. At the same time it will be contentious also in context of discussion around MRT Staffan: suggest to include two alternatives, to choose for consideration by the CWG Martin: If CSC is doing its job well, it wil be boring. Having liaisons will be unnessary under these circumstances. Not mention the origin of liaisons. The liaisons from other ICANN groups, who should keep their group informed. Donna: Include qualifications: should be kept small, and people on CSC should be qualified Stephanie: Differentiating between members and liaisons gives us some flexibility to define the roles (as martin is suggesting) when we have a sense of what kind of participation other groups are seeking Strike the number and include reference to liaisons with description of role. Martin: issue around "expert" . Suggestion CSC: CSC could seek "expert advisors". Staffan: Frankfurt take away was the sense of capture, by including multi-stakehoderism. at othe level. Suggestion Kim: IANA liaison to CSC. AS part of reporting function need for IANA to have a seat at the table. as non-voting participant. Staffan: supports idea. Martin: more then support. If there issues, this person would be able to explain to what and why Stephanie: not opposed. The CSC will be interacting but to have one at the table . Donna: Steve C suggedsted that RSSAC represent direct customers of naming function. Staffan: include as liaison Martin: Root server operators, special role, and as such should be part of CSC. Kurt: Question whether laisiosn or member? they can always be elevated. Kim: rare direct interaction. At the same time high interest, in the Root zone. Donna: minimum of 2 ccTLD and 2 gTLDs, and liaisons from other groups and 1 IANA liaison. Fundamental principles Should be kept small and members should have relevant expertise Two options: 1. TLDs ( cc and g) + RSSAC Liaisons + 1 IANA Liaison 2. As 1, + other liaisons Section 13 Staffan: Sounds reasonable. Original with MRT, but now back with CSC Related to change on how IANA does its business Kurt: Endgame in escalation process. Depends on composition Martin: section 13 reflects outward facing aspects of the CSC. Need to go out with proposals if changes. Stephanie: 13 should include a change to how IANA does its business OR to how the CSC does its business Review language to ensure it is about day-to day business Action Strike affect oversight of the IANA Naming Functions. and replace with Stephanie's suggestions: a change to how IANA does its business OR to how the CSC does its business Section 14 Donna: 14 is about escalation and step in separability, not mandated to make such a change. Add, change to: remediation /escalation process Dependencies section of Document Action Add dependency relating to DT M (Escalation) Kim: IDN repository is not contracted, but falls under responsibility of IANA department. Other example: List of accredited registrars (also maintained by IANA department) Martin: Management of .INT similar to other functions. If considered to be part of role of CSC, customers of INT should also be aprt of CSC Kim: Majority of customer International org.
From general perspective. it is considered part of naming function
Keep reference to .INT in. Keep in reference to IDN repository as placeholder Discussion on Table Take out column CSC Perform Row 3.4 Security Plan Kim: if security , not to made public. Martin: Okay with KIm's suggestion. Supports concept of 3rd party auditor, to show it has been gone through. See comment Kim, to be included Row 4.6: leave it in but recognize it is deliverable at he end of contract. Left in to acknowledged it has been looked at. Row 7.2: suggestion to include language that it is being done. Strawman section Kurt suggest to include principles. Need to adjust and evolve over time. Martin: DT M and remedial action are not parallel but different processes. If remedial process fails, the escalation process kicks in. Question: whether the level of detail as in strawman is needed in this document. If Remedial action does not resolve then next step. Donna: let's leave in , understanding that level of detail will be challenged. Process to make complaints Donna for individual cases keep information confidential Kim: in some cases information needs to be remain confidential. Work Plan needs to be on list Onsite visit of IANA facility Is there a need to maintain. Question how often does NTIA visit? Hardly Onsite visit is not needed Review of reporting requirements post-transition Second paragraph: agreed Composition of the CSC: should match the suggestion in Overview Keep in description to delineate differences CSC Take out Travel funding out for Onsite visit. No travel support recommended for CSC
