Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Face to Face Day 1 Session 3 Meeting on 26 March are available here: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Session+3%3A++DT-D%2C+...> Session 3 Notes DT-D Authorization * See also DT summary presentation as well as document shared by DT D * No authorization function for TLD changes is needed post-transition * This was not totally unanimous: there was one person who disagreed, but said he would not stand in the way * In principle, another DT could take up the work on process steps --> DT-F may be the place for that discussion * We may need to explain why the role is no longer needed, so we need to build in the rationale -- What is the rationale? With automated system deployed in 2011, there is no longer anything for NTIA to check. NTIA checks that the communication channel through which the request is transferred is secure. NTIA also checks that IANA followed its process * Currently, the ICANN Board certifies IANA process on IANA behalf. The Board would prefer not to continue that role. * Could you have one policy that fits both ccTLDs and gTLDs? Overall, need to check all recommendations for how they compare for gTLDs and ccTLDs (if the policy id the same or different) DT L - IANA Functions Transition Plan Actions * See also DT summary presentation as well as document shared by DT L * High level operation / procedures using industry standards and best practices * Retain technical focus, will not consider HR, IT issues, cultural issues, etc. * Should the technical transition framework address the possibility that IANA would be separated into three parts (numbers, protocol parameters, naming) as a result of the transition? The assumption is that it goes all together so probably not worth looking at this now. Also, focus should be on naming only. * DT to review documents received / requested from ICANN (Continuity of Operations Plan / Root KSK Plan) * Where are the non-technical aspects of a possible transition to be dealt with? Not in DT L, but will need to be considered further by CWG as a whole. * Requirement for transition to successor operator (i.e. similar to business continuity plan) should also continue post-transition DT-E - SAC69 * Form of stress test / cross check * See document circulated to CWG mailing list * Each recommendation has been aligned with current sections of the draft proposal and relevant DT * Each DT recommended to review document and review the recommendation related to the respective DT - if recommendations have been mismatched, please let staff know so that the document can be updated accordingly. * Red team = stress testing of the proposal against SAC69 and any other requirements. DT-B - Need for IAP on ccTLD delegation and redelegation * Appeal mechanism for ccTLD put on the table by ccTLDs to be considered - DT created. * Limited survey in January showed agreement that there should be an appeal mechanism, however the details were not clear and no consensus to move forward. * Survey of whole ccTLD community to see whether view is held across ccTLD community that no IAP for ccTLDs is needed. * Awaiting closure of the survey * Will be up to ccTLD community to show strong support that an IAP for ccTLDs would be needed, as part of the transition otherwise it should maybe be considered on a parallel track by ccTLDs. * Verify that CCWG is covering IAP (cross-checking), but no overlap with what DT B is currently doing. * Until survey is completed, no further work expected to be undertaken. * For issues / disputes outside delegation / redelgation, IAP could be used provided that panelists are available with expertise in IANA DT N - Periodic Reviews * Scope template has basically been completed. * Compiling reviews that are foreseeing in other DTs to use as a starting point (including timing, who does it, etc) * Open for anyone to contribute and review (see <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc7...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc7...) * Keeping big picture / overview will be important to ensure that all pieces fit together * DT to review guidance document which contains a number of suggestions * Already requirements for audits - to consider how this may/should continue and how should review those? DT F - Relationship NTIA, Root Zone Maintainer and IANA * Alan Greenberg to lead * Additional volunteers David Conrad, Cheryl Langdon-Orr Input on DTs * Any DTs that you'd like to see? any further progress required to produce a response to RFP? etc * Jordan Carter: there should be a DT to design a Charter/Terms of reference for the CSC * Chuck Gomes: there should be a DT for the IANA budget. There are two parts: input into the current budget proces (short term) and longer-term for post-transition. The third component is to coordinate and inform CCWG on budget drivers. * Keep track of how pages we are generating for a proposal * Support for the red team * Need a mechanism to ensure that the CWG/CCWG coordination --> Cheryl * Stephanie Duchesneau: DT on non-technical aspects of a transition (specifically, funding to support a separated entity) * Look into coordination with the two groups * Sexy pictures needed -- long proposal is a turn off Action Items None
