Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #64 -- 2 September 2015
Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 64 on 02 September 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/D5FCAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: text should read e.g ICANN Board not i.e. ICANN board Action: adjust p.15, A4 so that it is consistent with the rest of the document (and on page 8) Action: circulate redline of those changes so that the document can be approved at next XWG meeting Action: finalize question of billing management at the next meeting. Action: refer Sidley to transcript and audio at this point of the meeting (about 1h into the call) so that they can incorporate the discussion on budget into their Public Comment drafting work. Action: Sidley to consider whether the scope of the enhanced IRP is adquate to cover PTI decisions. Notes 1. Opening remarks * Calls scheduled every two weeks * Since the last meeting, the Chairs have submitted a clarification on the IANA IPR issue (to the ICG). * SLEWG has done their work -- thank you! * Client Committee has met to discuss Bylaws and an update will be provided in #3 2. Review of SLEWG output * Thank you to SLEWG for really hard work! * After ratification, IANA staff will develop plan for testing and implementation (with NTIA approval since ICANN is still under contract) * Principles were approved by the CWG earlier in they year * Key point in "Assumptions": ensure that each element of IANA's work is measured Martin Boyle questions/review: * has concerns on the process to approve changes in new regime (p.8 and p.15) -- not clear where the responsibility for authorization lies "externally". Is the external party the ICANN Board or PTI Board or another? This is particularly important in the case of ccTLD delegations. * --> for gTLDs the ICANN Board is the external party. For ccTLDs, the situation is different: third party only confirms process is followed. * Second question is about emergency changes (p.17) -- what was this just as a note and did not appear in the table? * Status tracker reporting on p. 14 -- is this a general service that can be made available to all TLDs? Action: text should read e.g ICANN Board not i.e. ICANN board Action: adjust p.15, A4 so that it is consistent with the rest of the document (and on page 8) Action: circulate redline of those changes so that the document can be approved at next XWG meeting Next Steps: * Timing is of concern so Chairs will need to monitor testing & implementation * Proposal will not be re-submitted to the ICG since this work was known to be done following submission and based on principles that are in the proposal. * Formal ratification will occur at next CWG meeting. 3. Update on legal work * Client Committee has not met in a while (since 9 July), but met earlier this week to review current and potential future work * Sidley has produced a Bylaws matrix and is itimately versed with the work of the CWG and CCWG, so we'd like to request them to draft the Bylaws. * CCWG and CWG have different drafting processes: the CCWG has ICANN holding the pen on the first draft, while the CWG has Sildey holding the pen. * A coordination meeting will be held on Friday between the CWG,CCWG, Sidley and ICANN to commence work. * Sidley will track and report on whether the CWG requirements are being met, and continue to be met, by the CCWG work. * Did touch on the issue of financial control and management. Chairs have planned to follow up with ICANN on this. Sidley has requested that the detailed billing (not the overall billing) is kept confidential. The Client Committee has the option of seeing the billing confidentially, but needs authorization of the CWG to do so. Any comments? * Notes, recordings, transcripts from the meeting are posted here: <https://community.icann.org/x/MoBCAw> https://community.icann.org/x/MoBCAw. Action: finalize question of billing management at the next meeting. 4. Update on CCWG-Accountability related issues IANA Functions budget: * is this subject to a veto or approval? Our intention was to have one or the other, and the CCWG has proposed the veto option. Confirming that this "veto" meets our requirements. * Martin suggests the ICANN-IFO contract contain an item about the budget to ensure responsibility * The CWG needs to be vigilant regarding the implementation. Jonathan raises the question about role of group in implementation Action: refer Sidley to transcript and audio at this point of the meeting (about 1h into the call) so that they can incorporate the discussion on budget into their Public Comment drafting work. Appeals mechanism: Attention given to ccTLDs ability to appeal issues (not related to delegations/redelegation until the ccTLDs determine a process for that). Action: Sidley to consider whether the scope of the enhanced IRP is adquate to cover PTI decisions. SCWG: No action required. CCWG has reviewed the issue and aware of the community mechanism needed to apply to the SCWG in the future. 5. AOB Proposal for another CWG meeting next week at 17:00 UTC in order to address the Sidley draft of public comment submission to CCWG and ratify the SLEWG document. 6. Closing remarks Close, see you next week
Dear all Thank you for the positive comments yesterday during our call concerning the IANA Server Level Expectation document. As requested, I have updated the document to reflect the comments raised (red-lined).. A clean version of this document (Rev1) I hope the CWG will formally ratify next wee (on our 10th Sept call). I would also like to thank Bernie for taking us all through the document and for checking the requested (Rev1) updates. Have a good w/end all Best Paul
Thanks Paul for the updated version. Unfortunately I will not be on the CWG call this week, but I am happy with the amended SLE's. On last weeks call, I was on a particularly bad connection, and asked a question which I don't think our Chair fully understood, and his reply was not particularly clear - so I would like to raise the question here for discussion by others on the call - the question is: "There were a number of ccTLDs who approved the Names Proposal at ICANN BA, on the proviso that the SLE's will be included as part of the IANA Transition Plan. With the likelihood the SLE's will be approved on this call, how can the CWG be sure the SLE's will be accepted by the ICG as an addition to the Transition Plan?" My reason for the question is that the ICG cannot make this document "materialise" into its documentation, so it requires some form of formal submission to receive it. The CWG (or the SLE sub-group of CWG) could submit the SLE document to the ICG as part of the "just closed" consultation round, as the ICG have stated they will still receive submissions for another day or two. Or the CWG could refer the SLE document to the ccNSO which could then discuss and vote on accepting, which would likely be done at the Dublin meeting (which would be an unnecessary delay imho). I do hope this can be easily resolved on the call, and that somehow we can formally submit the SLEs for inclusion by the ICG as early as possible. Cheers Keith On 5/09/2015 3:49 a.m., Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:
Dear all
Thank you for the positive comments yesterday during our call concerning the IANA Server Level Expectation document.
As requested, I have updated the document to reflect the comments raised (red-lined)..
A clean version of this document (Rev1) I hope the CWG will formally ratify next wee (on our 10th Sept call).
I would also like to thank Bernie for taking us all through the document and for checking the requested (Rev1) updates.
Have a good w/end all
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Keith, I understand this better now. Let's discuss (in CWG) what may be possible. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Keith Davidson [mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 10 September 2015 06:08 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call yesterday. Thanks Paul for the updated version. Unfortunately I will not be on the CWG call this week, but I am happy with the amended SLE's. On last weeks call, I was on a particularly bad connection, and asked a question which I don't think our Chair fully understood, and his reply was not particularly clear - so I would like to raise the question here for discussion by others on the call - the question is: "There were a number of ccTLDs who approved the Names Proposal at ICANN BA, on the proviso that the SLE's will be included as part of the IANA Transition Plan. With the likelihood the SLE's will be approved on this call, how can the CWG be sure the SLE's will be accepted by the ICG as an addition to the Transition Plan?" My reason for the question is that the ICG cannot make this document "materialise" into its documentation, so it requires some form of formal submission to receive it. The CWG (or the SLE sub-group of CWG) could submit the SLE document to the ICG as part of the "just closed" consultation round, as the ICG have stated they will still receive submissions for another day or two. Or the CWG could refer the SLE document to the ccNSO which could then discuss and vote on accepting, which would likely be done at the Dublin meeting (which would be an unnecessary delay imho). I do hope this can be easily resolved on the call, and that somehow we can formally submit the SLEs for inclusion by the ICG as early as possible. Cheers Keith On 5/09/2015 3:49 a.m., Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:
Dear all
Thank you for the positive comments yesterday during our call concerning the IANA Server Level Expectation document.
As requested, I have updated the document to reflect the comments raised (red-lined)..
A clean version of this document (Rev1) I hope the CWG will formally ratify next wee (on our 10th Sept call).
I would also like to thank Bernie for taking us all through the document and for checking the requested (Rev1) updates.
Have a good w/end all
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, I think referring to the ccNSO may be better (considering they are the ones who made such condition in their approval), although I expect they are part of this CWG and as such have the document. Nevertheless, there is merit in formerly addressing it to them. Other operational communities don't have their SLA included in their proposal as well so the names in that sense is not in a unique situation. I expect ICG will get back to the communities if the SLA/SLE is determined to be required before onward transition to NTIA (through ICANN board). Overall I think it's a good thing that the document ready for transition to ICG anytime requested and I think considering the relevance the document carries, it may be good to have a formal acceptance of the entire chartering organisation. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Sep 2015 06:11, "Keith Davidson" <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Thanks Paul for the updated version.
Unfortunately I will not be on the CWG call this week, but I am happy with the amended SLE's.
On last weeks call, I was on a particularly bad connection, and asked a question which I don't think our Chair fully understood, and his reply was not particularly clear - so I would like to raise the question here for discussion by others on the call - the question is:
"There were a number of ccTLDs who approved the Names Proposal at ICANN BA, on the proviso that the SLE's will be included as part of the IANA Transition Plan. With the likelihood the SLE's will be approved on this call, how can the CWG be sure the SLE's will be accepted by the ICG as an addition to the Transition Plan?"
My reason for the question is that the ICG cannot make this document "materialise" into its documentation, so it requires some form of formal submission to receive it. The CWG (or the SLE sub-group of CWG) could submit the SLE document to the ICG as part of the "just closed" consultation round, as the ICG have stated they will still receive submissions for another day or two. Or the CWG could refer the SLE document to the ccNSO which could then discuss and vote on accepting, which would likely be done at the Dublin meeting (which would be an unnecessary delay imho).
I do hope this can be easily resolved on the call, and that somehow we can formally submit the SLEs for inclusion by the ICG as early as possible.
Cheers
Keith
On 5/09/2015 3:49 a.m., Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:
Dear all
Thank you for the positive comments yesterday during our call concerning the IANA Server Level Expectation document.
As requested, I have updated the document to reflect the comments raised (red-lined)..
A clean version of this document (Rev1) I hope the CWG will formally ratify next wee (on our 10th Sept call).
I would also like to thank Bernie for taking us all through the document and for checking the requested (Rev1) updates.
Have a good w/end all
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi all, At our last call I raised a number of concerns that I had with the draft. I am afraid that these remain in place in the draft we are discussing this evening. My issues are: 1. We have not discussed the process by which the recommendations from the IANA functions operator are checked and approved. Currently this is a role that is entirely within the IANA functions operator - the IANA team provides a report to the ICANN Board which checks to see whether due process has been followed and that the relevant tests have been documented and explained. This is an internal review now. Who should carry out what is essentially a check that the IANA team has carried out its work correctly? I'd be inclined to say the PTI Board (as the body *directly* responsible for the IANA functions operation): it has ICANN appointed directors - one of these could ensure that ICANN's interests are properly represented. It could be argued that this should remain with the ICANN Board, but that would give have split responsibilities, which is messy. It also puts the decision into the policy-authority's role, so there will need to be caution about the separation of policy and operation. 2. There is an introduction of independent verification parties and third party review. Given our decision to avoid duplicating the NTIA authorisation role to avoid setting new gatekeepers, I do not welcome the introduction of an independent verification party and there certainly needs to be clear accountability for that entity. While I understand that an ICANN Board decision process could be seen as a third party decision, I would like us to introduce clarity in what we expect - in this case the choice between PTI and ICANN Boards having the role of ticking off the change proposal. 3. Emergency transaction times This is, I believe, included in the ICANN-NTIA contract. I still do not understand why this does not appear in the tables and I do not want it to be lost when the templates are completed. I would suggest the following changes in the current draft to take into account these concerns. I have tried to make them neutral - I am conscious that a lot of work is still needed to populate the SLEs and some of the decisions on process flow might then get reflected in more precise wording on who does what. * Page 8 Category IV: change "... and having that report reviewed externally ..." to "... and having that report reviewed following agreed processes (either by the PTI Board or by the ICANN Board) ..." I would also welcome a commitment to discuss where this operational oversight should lie in the new structure. * Page 11 last row: change "Time for third-party review of request (e.g.by ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification parties)" to "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board adoption of the change report." I could also accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." * Page 15 A4 row: change "waiting on ICANN Board or other independent verification parties ..." to "waiting on [PTI or ICANN] Board for adoption of change report ...". I could also accept "waiting for [PTI or ICANN] process verification and approval...". * Page 16 B4 row: I'd prefer to see this new row deleted: it appears to have the sole function of introducing a third-party review. I _could_ accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] review of process - Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board review and adoption of change report" or "Time for [PTI or ICANN] review of process - Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." * Page 17 Process performance note: incorporate in the table * Page 23 top full row of table: change " Time for third-party review of request (e.g. by ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification parties)" to ""Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board review and adoption of change report" or "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." Thanks Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: 04 September 2015 16:49 To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call yesterday. Dear all Thank you for the positive comments yesterday during our call concerning the IANA Server Level Expectation document. As requested, I have updated the document to reflect the comments raised (red-lined).. A clean version of this document (Rev1) I hope the CWG will formally ratify next wee (on our 10th Sept call). I would also like to thank Bernie for taking us all through the document and for checking the requested (Rev1) updates. Have a good w/end all Best Paul
Martin, Are you referring to the last DT call or the last CWG call? Thanks. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: 10 September 2015 12:29 To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>; dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call yesterday. Importance: High Hi all, At our last call I raised a number of concerns that I had with the draft. I am afraid that these remain in place in the draft we are discussing this evening. My issues are: 1. We have not discussed the process by which the recommendations from the IANA functions operator are checked and approved. Currently this is a role that is entirely within the IANA functions operator - the IANA team provides a report to the ICANN Board which checks to see whether due process has been followed and that the relevant tests have been documented and explained. This is an internal review now. Who should carry out what is essentially a check that the IANA team has carried out its work correctly? I'd be inclined to say the PTI Board (as the body *directly* responsible for the IANA functions operation): it has ICANN appointed directors - one of these could ensure that ICANN's interests are properly represented. It could be argued that this should remain with the ICANN Board, but that would give have split responsibilities, which is messy. It also puts the decision into the policy-authority's role, so there will need to be caution about the separation of policy and operation. 2. There is an introduction of independent verification parties and third party review. Given our decision to avoid duplicating the NTIA authorisation role to avoid setting new gatekeepers, I do not welcome the introduction of an independent verification party and there certainly needs to be clear accountability for that entity. While I understand that an ICANN Board decision process could be seen as a third party decision, I would like us to introduce clarity in what we expect - in this case the choice between PTI and ICANN Boards having the role of ticking off the change proposal. 3. Emergency transaction times This is, I believe, included in the ICANN-NTIA contract. I still do not understand why this does not appear in the tables and I do not want it to be lost when the templates are completed. I would suggest the following changes in the current draft to take into account these concerns. I have tried to make them neutral - I am conscious that a lot of work is still needed to populate the SLEs and some of the decisions on process flow might then get reflected in more precise wording on who does what. * Page 8 Category IV: change "... and having that report reviewed externally ..." to "... and having that report reviewed following agreed processes (either by the PTI Board or by the ICANN Board) ..." I would also welcome a commitment to discuss where this operational oversight should lie in the new structure. * Page 11 last row: change "Time for third-party review of request (e.g.by ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification parties)" to "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board adoption of the change report." I could also accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." * Page 15 A4 row: change "waiting on ICANN Board or other independent verification parties ..." to "waiting on [PTI or ICANN] Board for adoption of change report ...". I could also accept "waiting for [PTI or ICANN] process verification and approval...". * Page 16 B4 row: I'd prefer to see this new row deleted: it appears to have the sole function of introducing a third-party review. I _could_ accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] review of process - Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board review and adoption of change report" or "Time for [PTI or ICANN] review of process - Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." * Page 17 Process performance note: incorporate in the table * Page 23 top full row of table: change " Time for third-party review of request (e.g. by ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification parties)" to ""Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board review and adoption of change report" or "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." Thanks Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: 04 September 2015 16:49 To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call yesterday. Dear all Thank you for the positive comments yesterday during our call concerning the IANA Server Level Expectation document. As requested, I have updated the document to reflect the comments raised (red-lined).. A clean version of this document (Rev1) I hope the CWG will formally ratify next wee (on our 10th Sept call). I would also like to thank Bernie for taking us all through the document and for checking the requested (Rev1) updates. Have a good w/end all Best Paul _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Sorry not to be clear: I was referring to last week's CWG call (3 September). -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 10 September 2015 12:35 To: Martin Boyle; 'Paul M Kane - CWG'; dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call yesterday. Martin, Are you referring to the last DT call or the last CWG call? Thanks. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: 10 September 2015 12:29 To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>; dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call yesterday. Importance: High Hi all, At our last call I raised a number of concerns that I had with the draft. I am afraid that these remain in place in the draft we are discussing this evening. My issues are: 1. We have not discussed the process by which the recommendations from the IANA functions operator are checked and approved. Currently this is a role that is entirely within the IANA functions operator - the IANA team provides a report to the ICANN Board which checks to see whether due process has been followed and that the relevant tests have been documented and explained. This is an internal review now. Who should carry out what is essentially a check that the IANA team has carried out its work correctly? I'd be inclined to say the PTI Board (as the body *directly* responsible for the IANA functions operation): it has ICANN appointed directors - one of these could ensure that ICANN's interests are properly represented. It could be argued that this should remain with the ICANN Board, but that would give have split responsibilities, which is messy. It also puts the decision into the policy-authority's role, so there will need to be caution about the separation of policy and operation. 2. There is an introduction of independent verification parties and third party review. Given our decision to avoid duplicating the NTIA authorisation role to avoid setting new gatekeepers, I do not welcome the introduction of an independent verification party and there certainly needs to be clear accountability for that entity. While I understand that an ICANN Board decision process could be seen as a third party decision, I would like us to introduce clarity in what we expect - in this case the choice between PTI and ICANN Boards having the role of ticking off the change proposal. 3. Emergency transaction times This is, I believe, included in the ICANN-NTIA contract. I still do not understand why this does not appear in the tables and I do not want it to be lost when the templates are completed. I would suggest the following changes in the current draft to take into account these concerns. I have tried to make them neutral - I am conscious that a lot of work is still needed to populate the SLEs and some of the decisions on process flow might then get reflected in more precise wording on who does what. * Page 8 Category IV: change "... and having that report reviewed externally ..." to "... and having that report reviewed following agreed processes (either by the PTI Board or by the ICANN Board) ..." I would also welcome a commitment to discuss where this operational oversight should lie in the new structure. * Page 11 last row: change "Time for third-party review of request (e.g.by ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification parties)" to "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board adoption of the change report." I could also accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." * Page 15 A4 row: change "waiting on ICANN Board or other independent verification parties ..." to "waiting on [PTI or ICANN] Board for adoption of change report ...". I could also accept "waiting for [PTI or ICANN] process verification and approval...". * Page 16 B4 row: I'd prefer to see this new row deleted: it appears to have the sole function of introducing a third-party review. I _could_ accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] review of process - Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board review and adoption of change report" or "Time for [PTI or ICANN] review of process - Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." * Page 17 Process performance note: incorporate in the table * Page 23 top full row of table: change " Time for third-party review of request (e.g. by ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification parties)" to ""Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board review and adoption of change report" or "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." Thanks Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: 04 September 2015 16:49 To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call yesterday. Dear all Thank you for the positive comments yesterday during our call concerning the IANA Server Level Expectation document. As requested, I have updated the document to reflect the comments raised (red-lined).. A clean version of this document (Rev1) I hope the CWG will formally ratify next wee (on our 10th Sept call). I would also like to thank Bernie for taking us all through the document and for checking the requested (Rev1) updates. Have a good w/end all Best Paul _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Martin Thank you for your comments and please remember this is a technical process/performance document NOT a policy document. I think your comments can be addressed by "friendly amendments" - and I attach an updated document which should be helpful and not deviate too much from the WG/ICANN/IANA agreed text. Quoting Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Hi all,
At our last call I raised a number of concerns that I had with the draft. I am afraid that these remain in place in the draft we are discussing this evening.
My issues are:
1. We have not discussed the process by which the recommendations from the IANA functions operator are checked and approved.
Currently this is a role that is entirely within the IANA functions operator - the IANA team provides a report to the ICANN Board which checks to see whether due process has been followed and that the relevant tests have been documented and explained. This is an internal review now.
Who should carry out what is essentially a check that the IANA team has carried out its work correctly? I'd be inclined to say the PTI Board (as the body *directly* responsible for the IANA functions operation): it has ICANN appointed directors - one of these could ensure that ICANN's interests are properly represented. It could be argued that this should remain with the ICANN Board, but that would give have split responsibilities, which is messy. It also puts the decision into the policy-authority's role, so there will need to be caution about the separation of policy and operation.
This is a Policy issue not in the scope of the SLE WG.
2. There is an introduction of independent verification parties and third party review.
Not introduction, just capturing the current process - but you are right there is some ambiguity ..... to recap.... Today IANA receives the request, checks it, processes it and seeks verification from the requesting registry (who is frequently not contracted with ICANN). For contracted parties ICANN may make a determination based on the terms of the contract with the TLD Registry. So to address your point and remove any ambiguity the term "relevant" may be more appropriate than "independent" so it reads: (e.g. by ICANN Board of Directors or other relevant verification parties)
Given our decision to avoid duplicating the NTIA authorisation role to avoid setting new gatekeepers, I do not welcome the introduction of an independent verification party and there certainly needs to be clear accountability for that entity. While I understand that an ICANN Board decision process could be seen as a third party decision, I would like us to introduce clarity in what we expect - in this case the choice between PTI and ICANN Boards having the role of ticking off the change proposal.
3. Emergency transaction times
This is, I believe, included in the ICANN-NTIA contract. I still do not understand why this does not appear in the tables and I do not want it to be lost when the templates are completed.
(Fortunately) There are not enough emergency situations to be able to ascertain appropriate performance - so the Emergency updates is a place holder for the CSC to be empowered to provide the thresholds as and when sufficient data is available (post transition). If it helps emphasise the importance of subsequent review - it would probably help to remove the prefix title :"Note" to enhance the importance of the Emergency target - but it is just that, a target. In the majority of instances the emergency update is completed well within the 12 hour target time window. To that end, I attache an updated version capturing the above points.... Best Paul
Thanks - I have just been told I missed a change "independent" to "relevant" on Page 23. So this version - Final Rev1a (attached) is the document for CWG this evening. Best Paul Quoting Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>:
Martin
Thank you for your comments and please remember this is a technical process/performance document NOT a policy document.
I think your comments can be addressed by "friendly amendments" - and I attach an updated document which should be helpful and not deviate too much from the WG/ICANN/IANA agreed text.
Quoting Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Hi all,
At our last call I raised a number of concerns that I had with the draft. I am afraid that these remain in place in the draft we are discussing this evening.
My issues are:
1. We have not discussed the process by which the recommendations from the IANA functions operator are checked and approved.
Currently this is a role that is entirely within the IANA functions operator - the IANA team provides a report to the ICANN Board which checks to see whether due process has been followed and that the relevant tests have been documented and explained. This is an internal review now.
Who should carry out what is essentially a check that the IANA team has carried out its work correctly? I'd be inclined to say the PTI Board (as the body *directly* responsible for the IANA functions operation): it has ICANN appointed directors - one of these could ensure that ICANN's interests are properly represented. It could be argued that this should remain with the ICANN Board, but that would give have split responsibilities, which is messy. It also puts the decision into the policy-authority's role, so there will need to be caution about the separation of policy and operation.
This is a Policy issue not in the scope of the SLE WG.
2. There is an introduction of independent verification parties and third party review.
Not introduction, just capturing the current process - but you are right there is some ambiguity ..... to recap....
Today IANA receives the request, checks it, processes it and seeks verification from the requesting registry (who is frequently not contracted with ICANN).
For contracted parties ICANN may make a determination based on the terms of the contract with the TLD Registry.
So to address your point and remove any ambiguity the term "relevant" may be more appropriate than "independent" so it reads:
(e.g. by ICANN Board of Directors or other relevant verification parties)
Given our decision to avoid duplicating the NTIA authorisation role to avoid setting new gatekeepers, I do not welcome the introduction of an independent verification party and there certainly needs to be clear accountability for that entity. While I understand that an ICANN Board decision process could be seen as a third party decision, I would like us to introduce clarity in what we expect - in this case the choice between PTI and ICANN Boards having the role of ticking off the change proposal.
3. Emergency transaction times
This is, I believe, included in the ICANN-NTIA contract. I still do not understand why this does not appear in the tables and I do not want it to be lost when the templates are completed.
(Fortunately) There are not enough emergency situations to be able to ascertain appropriate performance - so the Emergency updates is a place holder for the CSC to be empowered to provide the thresholds as and when sufficient data is available (post transition).
If it helps emphasise the importance of subsequent review - it would probably help to remove the prefix title :"Note" to enhance the importance of the Emergency target - but it is just that, a target. In the majority of instances the emergency update is completed well within the 12 hour target time window.
To that end, I attache an updated version capturing the above points....
Best
Paul
Many thanks everyone for your work on this. I am delighted to attach the SLE document which was approved earlier today 10th Sept. Kind regards Paul
Thank you Paul, that tallies with my notes. -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: 10 September 2015 19:04 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: dt1@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Approved: Service Level Expectations Document. Many thanks everyone for your work on this. I am delighted to attach the SLE document which was approved earlier today 10th Sept. Kind regards Paul
participants (6)
-
Brenda Brewer -
Jonathan Robinson -
Keith Davidson -
Martin Boyle -
Paul M Kane - CWG -
Seun Ojedeji