Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA DT-C Meeting - 16 March are available here: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892769> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892769 Action Items Action Item: all; within 24 h review contributions and make update Action Item: Donna; to prepare analysis, RFP 3, Avri proposal and Auda, and get back to group Thursday morning UTC For future Action: Recap discussion for Ashley and Kim and identify questions if any for them: What escalation processes are currently in place between IANA and NTIA. Action Item: Bart: Doodle poll for Friday 20 March afternoon UTC (15 or 16.00) Action Item: Automation discussion to be started on list; Notes Update Kim and Ashley. Kim is available to provide input. Dona will talk to Ashley's Question how to use expertise? Martin: agrees with both Ashley and Kim as much as possible. Provide clarity around and specific questions, and ask them to be present and provide feed-back on texts. Staffan: safe them to full participation on email list Staffan input section a) of Template Marked in blue Not included reference to MRT Donna: One of the challenges: unknown whether there will be CSC /MRT structure or contract c. SO question develop as stand-alone Agreement of DT members: assume it is a standalone committee What SSR role? How does it relate to monitoring Suggest to make comments at sections where related Kurt: No role in policy Rather then SSR role it is an operational role Liaisons: what is purpose? IETF and RIR's are also director customer RSSAC liaisons also reasonable Liaison-ship of SSAC and ISOC are questioned Suggested wording: invited to participate for specific deliberations Goal is to keep it small Martin: Reference to SSR point, obligations of IAN to undergo regular audits.. Work done on audits, should be drawn to attention to CSC. Liaisons idea seems to be a good idea, given link to SSR side. I In section C of document more viewed as part of outreach. Flexibility etc. could be done an annual basis Donna: Sections in NTIA IANA Functions Contract Sarah look at section b List of reports, broad interpretation ( to NTIA AND to public) Explanation of table Section B template Row 1: IETF related activity -> CSC coordinate with IETF Row 2: Added criteria, for transparency Row 3: Added criteria, for transparency Kurt: Is job, to report on detail of detail provided? or should CSC do it once established. Is responsibility to define template of reports Stefanie: This covered in section d Donna: what kind of document to put forward for Istanbul Think a view of what are relevant aspects and should be improved Martin, Section C First 3 items regular grind of CSC 4th item: rasie /con Item 5 what would happen if targets are not met. Try to understand systemic failures, escalation Item 6? CSC members should engage and relay to own community of origin Donna: Question for Ashley Kim perspectives on what is currently happening with respect to escalation Stephanie, Section D template. Assumption, keep metrics the same Delegation/redelgation reports, lot of narrative? What is good source for basics? Martin: reference to work FOI WG, idea for changing reporting discussion for ccNSO. Stephanie: Would it be appropriate for CSC to have role in discussion on reporting? If so, where does it start and end? Make it timely Staffan: no direct role for CSC in delegations and re-delegations of ccTLDs gTLD reports: more standardized. Assumption, no changes. Reports high-level in nature, procedural and operational checks. Ideas about riggers to make changes? Description of procedures for changes Bernie: Does process include, double checking with relevant customer community? Stephanie: community check is not included yet gTLD Annual report: not clear what is contained nor process (no access). Prepare questions around this topic? Kurt: gTLDs are not re-delegated. To be checked Ongoing process control <http://monitoring.to/> monitoring.to identify if issues are occurring. maybe part of MArtu=in group or part of Escalation or even SLE group. Martin: Sounds like dash-board CSC primarily volunteers. Once a moth receive report, and commits to work on that day. Risk of overloading, if more continuous work is required. Kurt: Define competent IAAN monitor. For later discussion:outsourcing of monitoring under contract. Bernie: At the end, maybe outsourcing may be considered. However, now check what works, what needs to be changed, let's be aware of time consequences of bringing in new items. Donna: realms of third party monitoring not a new discussion, Note NTIA does have resources in place Outsourcing to be tabled for later. real time monitoring, unclear if it is happening right now. For simplicity reasons march ahead Martin: suspicious of errors/failures that need more then monthly progress ( ongoing) Maybe allow individual complaints by registries to CSC. However CSC could be in the middle. Potential of part of escalation Root zone management. Requirement only if new services are provided. Question whether monthly or instantaneous. Assumption Kurt: Section E Describing what remedial action were, may overlap with escalation Table: describes triggers, that CSC would notice IANA Staffan: Matrix clear starting point for start of escalation However it is tricky. SLE is talking about it as well. Distinction between contracted and non-contracted parties. Martin: Welcomes approach, it shows process that is directly to customers. questions: is there a level "zero". Yes you failed SLE requirement, but there are special circumstance -> new column: initial discussion on failure. If parties go through process, include plenty opportunity for dialogue. Staffan, Section F To be updated Martin Section H Identify emerging issues Suggests annual meeting between registry operators and IANA on annual report, Relates with Stephanie's point. Donna: Reference to David Conrad's points on the list of CWG (related to for example DNSSEC). Kurt: updates on upcoming changes, include in monthly update Stephanie: Section I Concern about minimal group, and experience and right priorities in mind It should be on a volunteer basis, to be carried out remotely. Staffan: notes voting Question: Is there need for voting? Donna: Context Everybody wants to have a seat at table. Cut back to minimum If stand-alone committee, composition may be different. Kurt: question roles of SSAC, and if so should be related to TLD Martin: could be need to bring in liaisons> Alternative: make activities as transparent as possible ,and let CSC engage with community Only in cases where confidentiality is needed, less transparency. Different reporting procedures, does not mean 3 different entities/platforms . All 3 customer groups will have interest in reporting. CSC could be shared among all 3 groups. Stephanie: rationale for at minimum liaisons, but potentially to be build out Martin : from earlier discussion on E. Agreement approach by Sarah for g. Next steps : provide update to sections What is missing? Donna: check within RFP 3 on CSC. More a check on whether there is something missing. Martin: process for registry to discuss changes/updates SLE commitment Who should organized? All to update there text in next 24 hours, and put in format that is expected Bernie: version 2.2. proposal has a kind of template