Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #38 on 14 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896590 Action Items Action item: DT N (Avri) to communicate to DT C what is being requested. Action item: Arrange 90 minute call between DT N, C and M to resolve outstanding issues in view of presenting recommendations by Thursday's meeting. Action item: Avri to circulate proposed language to the list to determine where this may best fit. Action item: DT L to update recommendations to reflect that there should be substance to the commitment to develop this plan within 18 months Action item: CWG encouraged to provide input on proposed outline for section IV. Action item: Cheryl to send two additional stress tests to staff (complete) Action item: Grace to complete her Action from DT-O and provide transcripts to CWG Notes 1. Opening Remarks: * Recap: focused on pulling together work of the group in the form of a draft proposal. Focus on work at hand - not opening new threads and avenues if at all possible. * Presentations of DTs - some open items identified that will be addressed in this meeting. * Structural considerations - major focus for meetings #39 and #40. Objective to move to single variant. * Dependency and linkage with CCWG needs to be in place - formulating additional details to be conveyed and identify dependencies in the proposal * Today a total of 3 meetings * Less than a week to produce a draft for public comment - convergence around DTs recommendations will assist in building the document. 2. Recap and tying up DT loose ends Day 1 * Assumption that work of DTs is agreed apart from those open issues identified * See document shared regarding DT open items DT A * Met yesterday with IANA staff and is working towards deadline to submit in time to review on Thursday's meeting. DT C * Does DT C accept the responsibilities implied in the table of reviews arising from DT-N? DT C to review this in further detail. Only two items that may require further thought (review of security audit report - CSC would currently only review whether it took place and whether there were no reason for alarm; AZM audit report), other items look fine at first sight. Action item: DT N (Avri) to communicate to DT C what is being requested. * What is the latest thinking of DT C with regards to the proposed role concerning escalation? No direct discussions yet based on yesterday's discussions, but an email thread has started to better understand the number of escalations that could be anticipated based on current experience (information so far indicates that number of escalations are minimal). Updated view needed by close of Wednesday (15 April) to be discussed during Thursday's meeting. Consider joint meeting between DT M, N and C to discuss and work out issues? Note, DT M did make a number of updates based on input of DT C prior to submission of its recommendations to address concerns. DT C may want to review those in further details (CSC not a dispute resolution body but more a facilitator/manager to ensure that issues get resolved). By avoiding complexity in the CSC, you may just be directing the complexity somewhere else if another body would need to be created or get involved. Try to find a compromise between desire for minimal role of CSC and need for a manager / facilitator for escalation. CSC is a function rather than an organization - objective to keep it simple and predictable. Escalation process in itself is a good structure but will need an appropriate home. Action item: Arrange 90 minute call between DT N, C and M to resolve outstanding issues in view of presenting recommendations by Thursday's meeting. DT O * Updated budget information was received and has been shared with the mailing list DT N * Update recommendations to reflect that a periodic review of the IANA Function can be triggered 'on demand' - mechanism would also need to be defined (how does that work). Section IV could be a place to deal with implications / triggers? Where would RFP related mechanism belong? Action item: Avri to circulate proposed language to the list to determine where this may best fit. * Clarify that the outcomes of a periodic review are not limited nor prescribed DT L * DT tasked to review clause C7.3 of the current contract: Transition to Successor Contractor - In the event the Government selects a successor contractor, the Contractor shall have a plan in place for transitioning each of the IANA functions to ensure an orderly transition while maintaining continuity and security of operations. The plan shall be submitted to the COR eighteen (18) months after date of contract award, reviewed annually, and updated as appropriate. DT L has reviewed existing plan in view of determining whether it is still needed, and if so, should it continue in current format or modified form. DT recommends continuation, with modifications, of a transition framework for the IANA functions should it be necessary for the IANA functions to be transitioned. DT recommends principles for the future evolution of the framework. Action item: DT L to update recommendations to reflect that there should be substance to the commitment to develop this plan within 18 months DT F * Met yesterday and will meet again tomorrow. DT expects to provide recommendations in time for CWG meeting on Thursday (17.00 UTC). * Will provide two levels of recommendations - high level recommendations, but additional work will needs to be undertaken to document other processes in which NTIA has been involved and will need to be replaced (e.g. DNSSEC). DT has identified some deficiencies in these processes which may be exacerbated by the absence of NTIA - further work may need to be done pre- as well as post transition to address these gaps. Budget authority will be required to investigate these issues. Priority 2 DTs * Chairs have reassessed priority two items * DT G - Chairs recommend that this dealt with through dialogue with other communities as it is not limited to naming community. Should there be an IPR issue that is naming specific, the CWG would obtain input from the legal advisors. Call has been scheduled with chairs of CRISP team to co-ordinate, not only on this issue but also broader conversations. * DT H (.INT) - Chairs understand that this issue is being dealt with by the GAC - await GAC input. * DT I (competition policy & conflict of interest) - CWG chairs consider that this issue is adequately addressed by DT C. Furthermore, legal advisors have provided input on antitrust matters. If needed, additional guidance could be sought from the legal advisors concerning best practices governance guidance. No need for a DT. * DT J (confidentiality & perception of conflict of interest) - CWG chairs consider that this issue is adequately addressed by DT C. Furthermore, legal advisors have provided input on antitrust matters. If needed, additional guidance could be sought from the legal advisors concerning best practices governance guidance. No need for a DT. * DT K (OFAC) - issue is being dealt with by ICANN as a whole. Proposed language will be circulated that should cover this commitment. 5. Implications of post-transition proposal (Section IV) * Dependent on structure - work that can be done in advance of those decisions has been limited. * Draft proposed outline for section IV was circulated to the CWG as part of the latest proposal. * CCWG has noted 2 additional stress test specifically relating to IANA aspects that will be added to the list. Action item: CWG encouraged to provide input on proposed outline for section IV. Action item: Cheryl to send two additional stress tests to staff (complete) AOB * Financial analysis has been shared with CWG - breaks out IANA costs (not including capital costs). Analysis of all of the costs of the IANA services in the FY15 budget. Figures would change depending on which model the CWG would go for, but it is not possible to predict those at this time. Support functions allocation has been factored in - detailed list has been included as a separate attachment. * CCWG may benefit from further details, including rationale for certain recommendations. CWG to provide feedback in response to email sent by Mathieu - certain clarifications may need to be made. Action item: Grace to complete her Action from DT-O and provide transcripts to CWG Closing remarks * Next calls will focus on key questions for CWG: which variants of the models stand out, consider key issues that will need to be addressed
