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
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;
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 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
