Hi Alissa, We’ll try to improve on the readability of the notes. Regarding your comment, this is a process-related comment best addressed by Lise and Jonathan. I will just say that informing the CWG of the discussion and decision/agreement reached is consistent with the process laid out by Lise and Jonathan for this Task Force. Regards, Trang From: <iotf-bounces@icann.org<mailto:iotf-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alissa Cooper via IOTF <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Reply-To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> Date: Friday, March 25, 2016 at 3:55 PM To: Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> Cc: "iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>" <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [IOTF] IOTF Call #2 - Meeting Notes (25 March 2016 @ 14:00 UTC) Hi Yuko, Could I suggest that going forward, if we’re going to have meeting notes detailed at this level, that the statements be attributed to the speakers? Otherwise it’s quite difficult to understand what happened in the meeting or who had which position. I had trouble with this when reading the previous minutes for the call that I missed. Alternatively, if it’s easier to write a paragraph summarizing the discussion and outcomes without attribution, that would work as well and would likewise be better than the listing of individual statements without attribution. One comment below. On Mar 25, 2016, at 9:51 AM, Yuko Green via IOTF <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> wrote: Dear members of the IOTF, Please see below the meeting notes from today’s IOTF call. The presentation material and AC room recordings are now posted at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation under “Meetings & Work Sessions” section. Please note, as a result of the connectivity issues between AdobeConnect and phone bridge we experienced today, the audio was not recorded in either AC room or phone bridge. The issue is now resolved and will not affect the future calls. ***** IOTF Call #2 25 March 2016 @ 14:00 UTC Please note that this meeting is being recorded. If you would like to review the last call(s), the recordings and presentation materials are posted publicly here: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks (Lise) 2. Implementation Items (Trang) PTI Structure CSC Charter 3. AOB 4. Closing Remarks (Lise) Notes: Recording started 8 minutes in as the meeting started late due to audio issue in AC room. Audio is only available via phone bridge. PTI Structure Russ H in chat "Every place the figure says "IAOC" should say "IAB"" Moving all 3 functions: Multiple contracts between PTI and ICANN due to different SLA, complaint mechanism, escalation processes. Numbers and protocols services will be sub-contracted to PTI as they will continue to have contracts with ICANN. If intent of the proposal is to cause minimum change to maintain the operational stability, then this shows the extent of changes between moving names only or 3 functions. Consensus of the community was to move all 3 functions after extensive discussions among operational communities. The proposal is clear that all 3 functions should move to PTI. Contracts and oversight should be separated as it's up to ICANN how it handles the sub-contracts with PTI. Proposal's intent was to make PTI to host the whole IANA department and that will mean minimum change Splitting the IANA department may cost more Operational security and stability should be the most important thing and moving all 3 functions will achieve that. Administrative hardship should be secondary concern. It is clear from the comments that the intent of proposal is to move all 3 functions. Moving all 3 functions may cause separation more complexed. Proposal is unclear about separation because we don't know what will cause the separation or remedies would be. IFR is the one who will recommend separation but IFR is Names oriented. But other communities have comparable methods to trigger separation. IFR is not the separation mechanism, but SCWG is. Implementation plan of moving all 3 functions into PTI needs to be presented to the whole CWG I don’t understand the statement above or recall it being discussed on the call. I do not believe the plan to move all three functions to PTI needs to be presented to the CWG. The CWG already agreed to it a long time ago. On the other hand, if this is about the specific details of how the move will happen, this sort of presentation seems reasonable. But I don’t think we discussed that today. Thanks, Alissa but we need to solve the other portions of the PTI matter, such as moving the staff into PTI. We need ICANN legal's memo to discuss that and come to decision. CSC Charter The list has been previously shared with Donna Austin, the lead of the DT-C, but she's unable to join the call to share her thought today. 1. Is ccNSO/GNSO approval on whole composition one-time only or ongoing? Donna's understanding was that there is no approval by ccNSO/GNSO in case of reappointment due to recall. However, any reappointment due to term expiration would require ccNSO/GNSO approval. ccNSO/GNSO should have the ability to question the reappointment for recall, but not need to approve. --> Bring it up to CWG for discussion 2. Required skill sets of the CSC members Need to provide the specific skill sets to the appointing ACs/SOs so they may appoint the members/liaisons appropriately and ccNSO/GNSO can approve accordingly. ICANN staff is requested to draft a first cut on skill set requirements Any additional clarification we gain from this discussion will resides in operational procedure documents or something instead of changing the charter itself. Instead of IOTF, ICANN should perhaps approach OCs to define the skill set requirements. ICANN staff to draft the first requirements but then bring to the OCs before finalizing. AOB 28 March Monday is public holiday for most people so no call will be held Next meeting to be held on 30 March Wednesday Doodle Poll to be sent out for Wed 1900 UTC Action Items: 1. ICANN staff to draft the first requirements for CSC membership skill sets but then bring to the OCs before finalizing. Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ IOTF mailing list IOTF@icann.org<mailto:IOTF@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iotf