Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-C - 20 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892955 Action Items Action Stephanie: capture discussion in next version overview document, and circulate for discussion Action staff: Send out Doodle for Monday afternoon (at latest closure 1 before close of the call) Notes 1. All DT members present + Kim Davies ( IANA ) 2. Prep Monday 6 pm UTC ( delivery time discussion paper DTC ) 3. Document Discussion * . GOOGLE DOC Staffan's changes, reflect discussion with ccTLDs ove rlast days * . Suggestion to go over text, in particular insertions from SSAC 069 Changes section a Kim: the way changes are presented is artefact from IANA contract 1.1. is superset of 1.2 ( Changes in area 1.1 automatically result in changes in area 1.2.) Point 2. Substantial changes for TLD Kim suggest text for Google text 1. Changes an appointed registry makes: 1.1 Changes to the root zone file (technical changes published in the DNS) 1.2 Changes to the root zone database (updates to technical and contact data published on the IANA website and via WHOIS protocols)2. Changes of registry appointments (i.e. delegation of new TLDs, transfer of existing TLDs, removing delegation of existing TLDs) Donna: capture in table is what is currently situation and what needs to change as result of transition See table C2.9.a.b Martin: Caution about involvement of the CSC (third parties) in sensitive area of ccTLD delegations and redelgations Also similar concern with regard to gTLD delegation and redelgation As suggested by Donna: no role for CSC in delegation and redelegation of TLDs Q: will it be challenged during the meeting? Note Potential overlap with Authorization: No role of CSC with regard to Authorization, only lead to delays - Maybe only role in MONITORING of Authorization. * . Current reporting: - Monthly reporting only seen by NTIA (confidential) ( DNSES key rollover, changes Question: how would CSC deal with confidential reports. In some cases ( issues with regard to individual) Public reports: * IETF report * Affidavit report * Dashboard ( root zone changes report) * . Point 3.2 (SSAC 069 report). In the course of regular business of IANA need correct licenses to conduct work. Pro-active certification, implies third party, understand Sarah: Government related issues, and should be treated as such Defer issue certification to DT OFAc licensing etc * . CSC discussion Sentences on cusotmers in Composition section and internal method of working Sentences, on SLE/SLA are referred in table. Role of CSC is to monitor SLE/SLA. Include Placeholder language. Martin: CSC could organise discussion. Primary role to get information out of IANA, and making it available to wider community if reviewing at SLE/SLA, initiate discussion. Sarah: SLE are set, and then somebody needs to check against these criteria. For monitoring CSC members look at their members Often forgotten communicating with broader community * . Kim: Does group have a sense of scope what falls under Naming function? Not just root zone also includes: .INT and .ARPA And auxiliary functions, IDN Table repository * . Question: If CSC does not take these on, who will? In curren tversion 2.1 of proposal .INT and IDN Table are included. David Conrad reading through document .ARPA addressed in IETF proposal .INT and IDN-> Specific DT s * . Kurt: CSC would be vehicle for changing SLA CSC on review Stephanie, there is another DT for this Should be role for the CSC, ensure it does not fall in the cracks CSC and appeals mechanism Strike section, part of letter' Breach of IFO functions Map against Kurt did. Donna: porposed text questions some of the text . Do GAP analysis between the two. Note also DT M (escalation), and need to coordinate Kurt: suggest to look at Donna's document Escalation process is complex to design, and implement Real escalation process needs to be improved over time Include Placeholder Breach by IFO Overview of Consensus elements Donna present document What are key-points what CSC would do. Includes mapping to sections of template DT C ( section A-J) Includes and builds on Sarah's table Area not covered C (Stephanie) and D (Martin) Template Marika does not provide structure to tell story Stephanie: Add specific Placeholders section, to show waiting for further input Use Kurt's org chart Staffan: Good way to present in Istanbul Area's it may be challenged. Escalation Martin: Possible they might be challenged. Is current table, key of what we are doing. Current escalation process, is internal in CSC, External Escalation is once issue for other DT Kurt: Suggest to use overview as starting point for deliverable. Get sense of group core is right Donna: work through document to seek agreement, Section A: Agreement Section B: Include monitoring the IANA and ensuring (agreed) Also suggested Oversight of the performance Section C: Restucture to reflect: Engage in cooperative communication ir order to ... Section D: Agreed Section E: change to IANA Naming Function, possibly broader then direct customer Kim: more often than annual. Issue: intermediating between IETF and community on implementation Emerging technologies and services and periodic reviews as separate point Monthly meetings to include emerging technologies Annual meeting, is getting people together, and consider Agreement to split in two bullets Suggested txt: The CSC will engage with IANA, the direct customers of the IANA naming function, and the ICANN community to discuss emerging technologies and issues that might impact the provision of IANA services. . (E2-> F) The CSC shall hold an annual meeting with the IANA Functions Operator, the direct customers of the IANA Naming Functions, and the ICANN community to discuss the performance of the IANA Naming functions and any changes to the services that are underway or forthcoming. Section F: rather call it operation/addressing problems, Identify that CSC may get involved b=in between meetings, second four stage process ( STRAWMAN), it is multi-stage escalation process is recommend, Needs to evolve over time (evolutionary approach) Section G: The CSC could be initial point of context (not escalation) The reality of process today: current escalation is not always need, What is expectation if IANA has tried to address issue. Mediation point There has to be some criteria/ parameters around complaints. Mindful if complaint was already Remove initial, Strike last sentence (The CSC .... and its processes) Include reference to ccNSO/GNSO when relevant Section H: Different numbers in different proposals Why is SSAC member? Proposal is minimum composition In other document reference to direct customers Include minimal composition However keep as small as possible - Registry operator are full of technical/operator capable people, SSAC could be asked as for advise - Go forward with lean configuration - CSC correspond with larger groups Makes sense to have communication with SSAC (liaison role) useful, in particular when isse beyond one group purview Alternative approach look at principles Section I: Be clear what purpose of additionals and liaisons are: and not leave it up to CSC to appoint. At same time additional people may be useful Reference in Underlyimng document to liaison as "temporary". Note in other context permanent Attach liaisons to CSC from GAC, ALAC, non-contracted part GNSO Section J: Include marker, refer to mechanisms identified in CCWG Accountability Stephanie suggest additional bullet: The CSC shall facilitate public comment periods and other community participation opportunities in the event that changes are proposed that would affect oversight of the IANA Naming Functions. Agreed Google doc, background for DT C, proceeed working on overview document Action Stephanie: capture discussion in next version overview document, and circulate for discussion Action staff: Send out Dodole for Monday afternoon ( at latets closure 1 before close of the call)
