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
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
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.
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
5. Other items
No comments
