Dear all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #29 - 17 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891803

Action Items

Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis)

Action: What is the origin of the text in v.2.2 section III.A.1.1 now and what guidance has NTIA &/or ICG already issued.

Action: All DTs aim to produce drafts for F2F by 18:00 UTC Monday

Action: Call for volunteers and call for team lead

COMPLETE (Grace): Add Erick to the DT-M mailing list

Action (staff): relocate periodic review function and assess where it fits in the Draft proposal

Action (Staff): Add Red Team at end of DT list to to examine whether there are any issues with respect to meeting NTIA's criteria,
particularly with respect to security and stability and prevention of capture. This is a particular form of stress testing

Action (Paul): send revised text to CWG for section 7.ii of the Principles

Action (Martin): complete discussion on Principles on mailing list (including 7.ii. and footnote 1)

Notes

Seun is on audio only

1. Opening Remarks

Great to see CWG embracing DT work

Need good sprint from now on (to finish developing the proposal)

2. Proposal 2.2

Chairs realize that there is an issue with the short notice with which documents are circulated (24h notice). This is due in part because of the fast pace of
meetings and work. Would be great to include content from RFP subgroup work into the draft, specifically RFP4 and RFP5 that were led by Robert and Cheryl

Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis)

Milton asks question about text in section III.A.1.1.
Jaap has indications that the numbers proposal is not detailed enough (heard in Singapore)
Overarching question: Is CWG going in the right direction in terms of implementation detail?

Action: What is the origin of the text in v.2.2 section III.A.1.1 now and what guidance has NTIA &/or ICG already issued.

Note (Milton): ICG has reviewed the numbers and protocols proposals and has not raised any questions about their level of detail)
Jari calls for all discussions on proposals to be public. ICG has discussed the 'level of detail' question
DT-L title could be changed to "separation mechanics" Staff note: DT-L had changed their title to 'IANA Functions - Transition Plan Actions' since the start of their work https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SyfZ_Yb6AitLzFOwmPZeLmzv8deTFMwQ-GT5jykQlwk/edit?usp=sharing

3. Design Teams

a. Istanbul cut-off on Monday 18:00 UTC

Action: All DTs aim to produce drafts for F2F by 18:00 UTC Monday

b. Update on DT-A (Paul Kane)

This is the Service Level Expectations group.
Will have document for comment/discussion in Istanbul
Got statistics from TLDs about interactions with IANA (IANA is performing well and generally responsive within minutes).
Group is working on documenting the status quo with real-world analysis
Difference between SLA and SLE: SLA requires two parties to proactively agree. If the 'internal' model is proposed, then there will not be two parties for the 'agreement'. The SLE sets a
threshold and standard for performance. Effect is the same.
Where will group be at the end of the week? The document will be 80% concluded. The document is likely to be deficient on the issue where there are hostile assignements/reassignments.
Need to consult with CWG to create exhaustive list of missing information / outstanding issues and formally ask NTIA for permission for IANA to release information

c. Update on DT-B (Bart Boswinkel on behalf of Allan MacGillivray)

DTB will send survey to ccTLD community this week to determine whether an appeals mechanism is needed to address delegation/redelegation, and if so, what requirements are requested?

d. Update on DT-C (Donna Austin)

Hope to have a draft available for discussion in Istanbul.
IANA staff contact and NTIA staff contact have been identified (they are only present for clarification when requested by the group)

e. DT-D (Cheryl Langdon-Orr)

Group has met minimum membership requirements and started to work through template document
It is DT-D's intention to have document ready by Monday deadline (at least for comment)

f. DT-F (no lead)

Action: Call for volunteers and call for team lead

Suggestion from Milton to merge with DT-D.

g. DT-L (Matthew Shears on behalf of James Gannon)

Developed draft over past few days
Still open to volunteers

h. DT-M (Chuck Gomes)

COMPLETE (Grace): Add Erick to the DT-M mailing list

i. DT-N (Avri Doria)

Put together a basic template (open for comment on Google docs)

Action (staff): relocate periodic review function and assess where it fits in the Draft proposal

One of the purposes of working in DTs is to put the Function before the structure.

Requirement appears to be missing for periodic review of operational performance -- not sure if this is part of DT-N or not.

Action (Staff): Add Red Team at end of DT list to to examine whether there are any issues with respect to meeting NTIA's criteria, particularly with respect to
security and stability and prevention of capture. This is a particular form of stress testing

4. Principles

Greg raises issue on term used in footnote 1.

--> "Unit" may be better term than "entity"

Discussion of 7.ii

Proposal from GAC was accepted by others who commented on this section, except for Paul Kane. Paul can talk us through on this call or provide new text.

Action (Paul): send revised text to CWG for section 7.ii of the Principles

Action (Martin): complete discussion on Principles on mailing list (including 7.ii. and footnote 1)

5. Update from Client Committee

· Mailing list composition has been modified to have Client Committee and Sidley only (posting rights). The rest will be observers (no posting rights)

· Sidley should post to list regarding progress on FAQs

6. AOB

High Intensity 1-2 April -- placeholders will be sent in case needed

7. Closing Remarks

See you in Istanbul