Proposed Agenda

1. Opening remarks

2. CCWG dependencies and the new CCWG draft proposal

3. Sidley’s Punch List (including DT-A and DT-F status)

4. Section IV

5. Public comments

6. AOB

Notes

Useful Links for CWG-Stewardship

• View submissions received (3 so far): http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15/
• Public comment webpage: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
• Webinar announcement: https://community.icann.org/x/V4E0Aw

Notes for meeting #44: 

1. Opening remarks

• This is a management call to agree on outstanding issues and who is dealing with them, etc. The goal is to get everyone on the same page. 
• We need to continue working during the public comment, but incorporate the submissions at the same time. 
• Have been asked to do additional webinars and there will be two more tomorrow. Please make sure to recirculate the announcement so that we can get as much attendance as possible. 

2. CCWG dependencies and the new CCWG draft proposal

• CCWG-Accountability published their draft yesterday: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en. 
• Chairs coordinated with the CCWG-Acct chairs and Sidley to make sure that the CWG-Stewardship dependencies were properly addressed. 
• CCWG-Acct will be on Thursday call and we can ask them questions directly then (meeting #45). 

3. Sidley’s Punch List (including DT-A and DT-F status)

• Punch List highlights priority items for discussion (as part of refining the CWG proposal) 
• Some areas of work can be best dealt with by existing DTs, but chairs were relunctant to create new DTs and/or spread the work out to all DTs considering the timeline. 
• Three big issues: determining PTI legal status; determining size and composition of PTI Board; and determining scope of PTI Board role. 
• Discussion on integrating IFR into the AoC review structure --> the IFR is not an AoC review per se, but it's a review of the same standing as the AoC reviews (it's a comparison).  
• DT-C will address questions assigned to it. 
• DT-M will also address their questions
• DT-A will continue its work and address its questions as part of its work
• Note that "Separation Review" will be renamed "Separation Process". Possible creation of a Design Team to work on separation process as an exception. Avri will lead the group, with some help from DT-N, but no need to create new mailing list for the work. 
• DT-F will reconvene to address authorization of RZM changes

Action (Sidley): revise the punch list and republish (removing AoC review question; and renaming 'separation review' to 'separation processs'; add DT-F's authorization of RZM changes)

4. Section IV

Staff to draft sections IV, V, VI, taking input and guidance from CWG on mailing list and during CWG meetings. 

5. Public comments

• 3 comments received so far. 
• PTI as a separate entity is getting most feedback. Some think it's not helpful and some think it's not separate enough. 
• Staff will propose a public comment template/ work approach for meeting on Tuesday next week. 

Action (Grace): make clear the link to proposal on the public comment page

6. AOB

No issues raised. 

Action Items

Action (Sidley): revise the punch list and republish (removing AoC review question; and renaming 'separation review' to 'separation processs'; 
add DT-F's authorization of RZM changes)

Action (Grace): make clear the link to proposal on the public comment page

Transcript

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: :   https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p58mrgoymw4/

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Milton Mueller: (5/5/2015 11:35) oops, I'm too early

  Brenda Brewer: (11:37) Welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #44 on 5 May.

  Brenda Brewer: (11:38) You're only 25 minutes early Milton.  You may stay

  Gary Campbell: (11:39) Hi Brenda

  Gary Campbell: (11:39) lol

  Gary Campbell: (11:40) Milton

  Milton Mueller: (11:41) Just hope you can't hear me slurping my soup

  Mary Uduma: (11:53) hello Alll

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (11:53) good day all

  Jaap akkerhuis (SSAC): (11:57) Evening all

  Lise Fuhr: (11:58) Hello All

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:59) Hello everyone

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:02) Hi

  Holly Gregory: (12:03) Greetings all

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:03) Greetings all

  Alan Greenberg: (12:05) Sorry to be late.

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:05) Webinar announcement: https://community.icann.org/x/V4E0Aw

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:07) CCWG-ACCT public comment page: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en

  Holly Gregory: (12:08) Our pleasure Lise!

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:10) The CCWG-ACCT is also hosting two webinars on Monday next week: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en

  Milton Mueller: (12:12) review team

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:12) Sorry Lise, I misunderstood.

  Lise Fuhr: (12:13) That OK I wasn'rt very clear in what to ask about

  Alan Greenberg: (12:13) I would have preseumed that the CSC is the part of ICANN charged with monitoring.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:13) @Alan - yep

  Milton Mueller: (12:13) agree Alan. But there is also IFR

  Allan MacGillivray: (12:14) I have a question: THE CCWG'S DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS IS JUNE 3,  WHEREAS ORIGINALLY IT WAS MAY 20, THEN SAME AS FOR THE CWG.  HOW MIGHT THIS SLIPPAGE IN THE CCWG'S SCHEDULE AFFECT THE CWG'S TIMELINE?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:14) ICAN as in the community

  Paul Kane: (12:15) Thanks Martin for the clarification - can we in future specify if it is ICANN Corporate or ICANN Community

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:15) The CCWG also plans a 2nd comment period in July for workstream 1.

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:15) @Mitlon. Agree,. IFR is also to be factored in.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:16) And IFR is also a CCWG dependency and contemplated as a fundamental bylaw

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:18) The CSC needs ro represent users of the service, and not all of them are involved in icann or members of one of the NSOs

  Paul Kane: (12:19) Martin +1

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:19) It might work through cc & gNSOs, but it has to take an overview of the whole performance

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:19) The membership of CSC would be as recommended by CWG.  It's not dependent on ICANN membership

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:19) But is not "ICANN" as such, just (partly?) based around icann community structures

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:25) Please email Avri and Brenda if you would like to join DT-N

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:26) With regard to the Determine legal entity: the comment period will illicit calls for the PTI to be based in Geneval or in a location not in the US.  Is there someway to address that the CWG could discuss that issue?

  Paul Kane: (12:26) Agree Jonathan better to leave for now as the LLC gives gerater flexibility than the non-profit but until I have understood better the scope I can't really cooment/select optimum until more is known

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:26) If you need Sidley on any Design Team calls to help address the legal issues in some of these sections, please let us know.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:27) We had no specific concerns - just a question

  Holly Gregory: (12:27) Agree with @Chuck

  Milton Mueller: (12:29) good to know

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (12:30) we did discuss this briefly in DT-N and the initial position was that these shouldn't necessarily follow the same cycle

  Milton Mueller: (12:30) got it. not integrating the reviews but taking one as a model for the other

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (12:30) the time cycle proposed to complete these reviews is also more condensed than the AOC reviews

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:30) I like Avri's approach:  make sure that the IFR is a pretty fundamental accountability process

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:30) Your line is a little loud / noisy. Mic volume?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:31) We should delete from the list since it is closed out.

  Milton Mueller: (12:31) be quieter, Avri

  Milton Mueller: (12:31) :-)

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:32) Sharon -- will Sidley revise the punch list and resend?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:32) Yes we will

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:33) And I just dropped the call so I did not hear Jonathan's response

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:33) Noted, thanks Sharon

  Milton Mueller: (12:36) cant hear Paul

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:36) Cannot hear Paul

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:36) no audio

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:36) There may be some benefit of DT-C and M  (and maybe N) working together since the issues do overlap in some cases

  Alan Greenberg: (12:36) very faint

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:36) Paul's voice has completely fased

  Lise Fuhr: (12:36) No not good enough

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:36) faded

  Paul Kane: (12:37) I'll write

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:37) dial out probably needed

  Milton Mueller: (12:38) yes. Separation Process, not review

  Avri Doria: (12:38) i was suggesting spearabity process, i think just to differentiate from the legal separation issues.

  Avri Doria: (12:39) but it is just a name

  Paul Kane: (12:39) Spoke with ICANN legal on Friday re disclosure of Work Flow - they said: Thanks Paul.  You have my assurance that we are all working togetherwithin ICANN to get this completed as soon as possible.  I'd like senior management at ICANN assistance to expedite the release of documents.  I fear delay is simply going to push back the transition date :-(

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:40) +1 Paul.

  Paul Kane: (12:40) We (SLE - DTA) need to be able to work with IANA to ascertain their workflow practice (current and post transition)

  Lise Fuhr: (12:42) It would be good to have a couple more helping Avri

  Lise Fuhr: (12:43) We will discuss the draft at the meetings

  Avri Doria: (12:43) yes, there neeed to be a group of people, hopefully some of hthe DTN folks will partapte as well.

  Milton Mueller: (12:44) I like that proposal, Jonathan

  Paul Kane: (12:45) It is now ONE month since I formally asked for the docs.  Could Samantha Eisner clarify where we are?

  Samantha Eisner: (12:46) I'm not on audio

  Samantha Eisner: (12:46) As I confirmed in email, we are working to get the documents out as soon as possible

  Paul Kane: (12:47) Alan +1

  Milton Mueller: (12:47) +1

  Samantha Eisner: (12:47) We expect that most of the information requested is going to be able to be released

  Avri Doria: (12:47) DT-Zs - how about, most of the work will  be done in the Drive doc, with snapshots/updates  sent to the list and any conversation on the list.

  Avri Doria: (12:48) i mean DT-Xs ---

  Samantha Eisner: (12:48) and we are also working internally so that there isn't this sort of perceived delay for documentation such as this

  Samantha Eisner: (12:48) We understand the import of the documents to the group

  Paul Kane: (12:48) Thanks Sam

  Samantha Eisner: (12:49) and are also trying to identify if there are ways that the CWG does not need to pushed into the DIDP in order to get documents

  Avri Doria: (12:51) DT-X SR: comments and suggested edits <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:51) We will add Alan's item to the list.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:51) DT-C

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:51) we have reference in the Charter

  Lise Fuhr: (12:51) Thank you Sharon

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:53) Is this one that can be advanced now or like others on hold?

  Avri Doria: (12:53) i have to drop off for another meeting on the hour, but will try to keep one ear on this one as well.

  Alan Greenberg: (12:54) New item regarding authorization/approval of substantive RZM changes, yes that can go ahead.

  Jaap akkerhuis (SSAC): (12:55) It would help to look how these changes such as IPv6 & DNSSEC has been introduced in the past

  Milton Mueller: (12:55) I tend to agree, Alan.

  Milton Mueller: (12:56) it is almost a policy decision, but in some sense could also be considered an implementation

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:56) @ Alan - agree

  Alan Greenberg: (12:56) And Milton is on DT-F

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:56) Sharon -- DT-F work is an addition, but not priority in red/shaded

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:57) @ Grace - got it

  Alan Greenberg: (12:58) @Milton. It is both and probably other things as well. The issue was framed in terms of DNS RZ evolution. And some future changed could be a small tweek, or something major.

  Paul Kane: (12:59) As per my email on list today - I would like to ensure that ccTLDs that do not look to ICANN for Policy are not impacted by ICANN post this process

  Paul Kane: (13:00) Thanks

  Lise Fuhr: (13:00) @Paul yes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: (13:03) happy to assist staff with sec 5 if that helps

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:07) sections will be delivered as separate documents until the drafts are 'final enough' to be included in the full CWG draft. 

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:09) We'll map implication section to match the other two proposals' style

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:10) View submissions received (3 so far): http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15/

  jorge cancio (GAC) 2: (13:13) thanks for the link, Grace

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (13:13) FWIW I would not be able to explain to the EU entities the merits of legal separation. Particularly as what we have got is an internal system. CW

  Avri Doria: (13:14) if one keeps in mind that is is a hybrid solution mean to anser to major concerns of both side of the issue, it get easier to explain.

  Milton Mueller: (13:14) but that doesnt allay concerns that it is a bad compromise - a camel is a horse designed by a committee, etc.

  Milton Mueller: (13:15) i don't think it is such a bad compromise, but that's the way it is coming across to some

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (13:16) I would prefer to sell a pedigree horse. CW

  Milton Mueller: (13:16) someone needs to mute

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:16) lost Alan?

  Avri Doria: (13:17) yes, we may find out that it needs better explanation.

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:17) To me, it's not a hybrid anymore. It's a considered and refined solution based on significant deliberation adn compromise.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:18) I think the 'rationale' is missing from the documentation and that needs to be addressed to avoid speculation and also enhance peoples understanding of how we got to this point.

  Avri Doria: (13:19) what we need to do is communicate how it meets the various concerns.

  Milton Mueller: (13:19) chuck's audio is going in and out

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:19) What we use to introduce section III isn't enough?

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:19) it's fine for me @Milton

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:19) @Chcuk. Agree it may not be unique to this model but it is esential to this AND other models

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:19) Chuck's audio is fine for me

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:20) Chuck's audio is fine

  Milton Mueller: (13:20) it is now

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:20) Can someone perhaps suggest edits to the section III introduction?

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:20) @Chuck. Good point. Contract without contract co

  Avri Doria: (13:20) Grace, if people are not seeing how it satisfies the wide set of concerns, then maybe not.

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:22) ok Milton -- we can do that

  Milton Mueller: (13:23) no, there is some latency and I can't lower it

  jorge cancio (GAC): (13:23) it is not only a long read, but to outsiders it is a difficult read ;-)

  Milton Mueller: (13:23) thanks, Grace

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:24) Next call is on Thursday at 11:00 UTC

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2: (13:24) thanks everyone... bye for now, talk soon...

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:24) Thanks all.

  Allan MacGillivray: (13:24) Thnaks everyone,  have a good day.

  Avri Doria: (13:25) bye

  Paul Kane: (13:25) Thanks all

  Jaap akkerhuis (SSAC): (13:25) Bye all

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (13:25) thanksall

  jorge cancio (GAC): (13:25) thanks and bye

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (13:25) bye all

  Lise Fuhr: (13:25) Thank you all