Wasn't there a specific action item to try and meet with IANA staff (Elise Gerich, etc.)? Greg On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call on 22 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416935 *Actions*
*Action SIVA: review document CCWG and merge with documents of this group. *
*Action Siva: Group /merge the tests/scenario's identified in similar way as WA 4 CCWG list.*
· *Need to check whether scenario relevant for transition.Include in document , with qualification, important , normal, not relevant in this context.*
*Action all: request if participants see a need to meet, if so , then use Doodle poll to set time.*
· *Question: is there need for meeting before Singapore by this group? Response need on the list by Friday 30 January 2015. 16.00 UTC.*
*Action staff : try to arrange meeting with BRC to seek information from them on risks already identified, and possibly relevant for RFP 4 group* *Notes*
*RFP 4 group call # 6*
*CWG Stewardship Transition 28 January 2015, 14.00-16.00 UTC*
*0. welcome/introduction.*
Siva & Seun audio only
Assess work has been done to date, get updates, plan moving forward
*1. review of tasks/minutes from last call*
· Update Siva on document on stress document and updates received:
· To date no participation on stress test document. Members are requested to have alook at the document.
*2. review/updates from sub-workings groups on timeline(s), stress tests*
· CCWG Accountability has been doing work on stress test and scenario's/ Suggestion to look at the work of CCWG Accountability
· OCL: Notes, potential of duplicating work.. Notes a limited number of scenarios, compared with work of the CWG RFP 4.
*Action SIVA: review document and merge with documents of this group. *
Include in document , with qualification, important , normal, not relevant in this context.
Based on this document, group to design a survey.
Note this group: Larry Strickling asked some specific questions to CWG, and one in particlur to this group.
See:*: * http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-str...
Jaap: notes difference made between test for transition and those related to accountability. Further Siva list needs to be trimmed to proper risks.. Currently list is open ended..
*Action Siva: Group /merge the tests/scenario's identified in similar way as WA 4 CCWG list. Need to check if relevant for transition.*
Question: what does it mean if a test fails? What are the metrics if doing the test/benchmark?
No clear answer. This is testing organization.
Suggestion: check what is meant with testing. Is checking impact on
Action Staff: RFP 4 wants to have a meeting with staff/and or NTIA around meaning of tests
Going forward
No further comments on Larry Strickling statement
Greg: Check what are causes ans outcomes. tests should be focused on IANA specific risks.
OCL: Board Risk Framework Committee,(BRC) is working on list of contingencies. This list is most likely not publicly available. Assumption the list of scenario's is on list.
*Action staff : try to arrange meeting with BRC to seek information from them on risks already identified, and possibly relevant for RFP 4 group*
*Update Timeline, transition time line *
OCL: Time line was geared against one proposal , however it this is now changing given RFP 3b now will look at two alternatives.
*Update RFP 3b AM*
RFP 3b contributes to document of CWG in preparation Singapore. The internal Option, will include two variants
"Trust" option
"Bylaw option"
RFP 3 update: moving forward on fleshing out Contract Co option. Latest focus on structural details and functions
As structural details are build out, more details could be included in set risks
* 3. improvements to working methods*
Looking for better coordination with other groups within CWG and with WA 4 of CCWG.
Need to avoid silo-ed work.
Question: what is best way to evolve work of this group, in conjunction with evolution of the different models.
How could coordination and collaboration with others could be improve
· GS: Iterative process between RFP 3 and RFP 4. Would be helpful for RFP 3 to review work of RFP 4 to inform their work: apply stress test while models are developed.
· Vice versa also applies. Update stress test, when tests are applied to models.
· Actively compare risk scenario's developed by different groups: BRC, CCWG, CWG and others
· RG: To assist Feed-back of this group to RFP 3, what are changes going forward.
· OCL: Raises concern that RFP 3b has reached standstill until Singapore awaiting Legal consideration. Risk of moving forward by this, without a linkage.
· GS: notes legal advice is limited, should not be preclude to work in parallel on developing tests.
· Try to work in parallel, and improve coordination to avoid wasting efforts.
* 4. Planning for ICANN Singapore meeting*
- Possible meetings with others. Suggestion to be send to list - *Action all: request if participants see a need to meet, if so , then use Doodle poll to set time.* - *Question: is there need for meeting before Singapore by this group? Response need on the list by Friday 30 January 2015. 16.00 UTC.*
* 5. Other items*
No comments
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
