Content Comparison

...

4. Discussion on Proposed Design Teams

5. AOB

6. Closing Remarks

Notes 24/2:

Opening Remarks

Committed to a refreshed approach

Bernie has been developing a version 2.0 draft:

1. can be used as a map

2. compared to other proposals

3. can be used as a backbone to hang incremental progress (such as work of the Design Teams)

Finalization of Work Methods

Meet twice per week as CWG (as much substance as possible)
3 meeting slots for Design Teams: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Sign+Up+Meeting+Slots
Role of Chairs in Design Teams: coordinate and manage the fact that DTs are not all running at the same time and that there are not too many people in one DT, etc.

Integrated Model

Presented by Avri Doria

Idea started at ICANN52
Wanted to preserve what is most important about IANA as we know it (continuity).
Didn't expect to build another model, was looking for compromise points (but it turned into another model)
There is a degree of separation in all of them (today this exists too -- the IANA team is functionally separate)
Included notion of a community Board including all three operational commnities (sort of a "MRT plus" because accountable to greater community)

Questions/Discussion

Community Board is an accountability anchor (includes other operational communities)
This model would make IANA one degree further of separation from what currently exists with GDD
Model proposers advocate for the model, but have flexibility with the variants. Preference for shared services model.
Andrew Sullivan: Subsidiary approach is most doable in this year's timeframe
Elise Lindeberg: Possibility for separation of IANA: how can this be done in this model? Response (Avri Doria): can be done but would require a process (initiated by ICANN or Community Board)
Milton Mueller: not sure I understand how separability works. Response (Avri Doria): there are different degrees of separation already today
IAP is something that still hasn't been worked on
Alissa Cooper: The whole discussion about additional involvement from the IETF/RIRs in oversight seems like a distraction from trying to solve the core issue of contention before this group, which is where the oversight of the names function will end up on the internal-to-external spectrum.

Integrated Model Related Links

Recap by Chairs

Discussion of Proposed Design Teams

Some ideas that have been discussed:

Action (Donna Austin) Need list of names for Service Levels Design Team

Action (Paul Kane): proposal needed for Service Levels DT

Action (Allan MacGillivray) submit proposal for IAP

Propose to have a "funnel" or list of potential Design Teams, but we'll start with 3 and record the rest for future work
Proposals must be submitted on CWG mailing list but the Chairs are to review

AOB

A liaison from / to the ICANN board: will not develop the idea at this advanced stage of the CWG
Timetable including F2F meeting in one month: will be producing a fresh version soon. The F2F meeting will take place in Istanbul on 26-27 March.
Note: Standards of behaviour, tone of discussions: please keep things civil on list. Depending on how you participate, it may limit how robustly you may respond; please be mindful of that
RFP subgroups: We will no longer run the RFP sub groups. Will meet as committees of the whole instead. RFP coordinators will continue to be relied on for support.

Closing Remarks

Thank you Avri and colleagues for substantive meeting

Next meeting is on Thursday 26 February at 11:00 UTC

Action (Donna Austin) Need list of names for Service Levels Design Team

Action (Paul Kane): proposal needed for Service Levels DT

Action (Allan MacGillivray) submit proposal for IAP

Transcript

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5dy582a0lj/

...