Content Comparison

Agenda 

Accountability mechanisms 

Notes

Overall Timeline / Milestones

• 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting
• 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting – review final proposal (sign-off?)
• 8 June - submission to SO/ACs
• 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting – Next steps, communication, other issues
• W/C 8 June – Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June?
• 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires

Current schedule for rest of meetings: 

• Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) – Remaining open issues including implementation and timescales

Notes: 

• Focus now on DC
• The function of the PTI Board is to operate the subsidiary to meet, at minimum, the statutorily requirements for the subsidiary. In addition the PTI Board will have to ensure that the PTI as the subsidiary performs to meet the conditions of the contract which will encapsulate all the SLEs and other requirements that PTI is expected to meet.
• The provisional construct of the PTI Board would be a range of 3-5 people with, for example, the President of GDD, CTO, IANA Managing Director, and two additional directors. The CWG will consider making recommendations as to the skill set of PTI Board directors. 
• A suggestion, consistent with the provisional construct, which received some traction is as follows: ICANN Board not CEO selects the 3 members of the PTI board from among ICANN employees with advice and consent of CEO; and also selects 2 members of the PTI Board from among ICANN Board members. 
• Tested this construct against the Public Comments, mindful that the PC was issued before there were further details on PTI

Clarification on what 'inside board' means: 

• From 13 May memo: "By “insider board,” we mean a PTI board comprised of a majority of directors who are employed by ICANN, including members of ICANN management responsible for oversight of the IANA functions."
• In the 13 May memo, assumption that ICANN was selecting PTI Board. 
• Not meant as a pejorative term

Action (Sidley): consider another term for 'inside'/'outside' Board

"Separation Process"

• Chuck Gomes proposed some edits/clarifications
• Composition for the IFRT and the SCWG would be the same

Composition 

The SCWG/IFRT would be composed as follows :

● ccNSO - 1 

● ccTLDs (non-ccNSO) - 1  

● Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) - 2 

● Registrar Stakeholder Group (RsSG) - 1 

● Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) - 1 

● Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) - 1 

● Government Advisory Committee (GAC) - 1 

● Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) - 1 

● Root Server Operators Advisory Committee (RSSAC) - 1 

● At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) - 1 

● CSC Liaison (selected by CSC) - 1

● Special IFR Team Liaison (selected by IFR Team) - 1

● Liaison from Protocol operational community - 1 (tbd with their approval)

● Liaison from Numbers operational community - 1 (tbd with their approval)

Composition is to remain an unresolved items, 

Suggestion that regional cc organizations could provide input to ccNSO in selection/appointment of representative. 

Scope of IFRT

Action (Stephanie) -- will do an overview of draft to make sure clarification/scope for naming functions is clear. 

Home of IFRT within ICANN so as to inherit resources and expertise

The group could make a recommendation on the "fit for purpose" so that appointing committees have an idea of the skillset needed to make appointments. 

Review must be initiated by ICANN Board and approved by ICANN Board -- these are 'checks along the way' for governance of the organization 

Open Issues: 

- initiation of special reviews (not having to go through Board approval; community consulation as base for board approval; is Board approval a barrier timewise?)

- composition of IFRT and SIFR

Views of the group on unresolved issues: 

• Chuck supports expansion of SCWG composition (with both ccTLD and gTLD expansion given the specifics of the tasks at hand)
• Martin still thinks that ccTLDs would be under-represented on IFRT but could live with increasing to 2 ccNSO reps instead of one. Agreement with Chuck on expansion of SCWG
• Avri has no strong issue with addition of cc member on IFRT, but concerned about alternates and other forms of expansion. 

Recap: 

• Make sure both groups are fit for purpose so, the CWG should specifiy skillsets for each group
• One additional ccNSO rep is possible on IFRT

Document resources: 

All Client Committee documents are here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee

Action Items

Action (Sidley): consider another term for 'inside'/'outside' Board

Action (Stephanie) -- will do an overview of draft to make sure clarification/scope for naming functions is clear. 

Transcript

Recordings

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3cxfno1hzw/

The audio MP3 link is available here:

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (5/29/2015 04:33) Welcome to the CWG IANA Intensive Work Day 2, Session 5 on 29 May 2015.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (04:52) Greetings again to all.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (04:56) Hello

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (04:56) Morning all

  Keith ccnso: (05:01) Good evening again a;;

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (05:01) hi everyone!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (05:01) The sun is now up, so it must be morning. here.  Hello all!

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (05:02) No sun yet hear but good morning anyway.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:02) Perfect way to start at 6am Greg =)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:02) @Greg:  no sun here

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (05:02) also a "no" on the sun over here. at noon.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:03) Evening all  I managed to fit in a quick dinner  though only just *sigh*

  Keith ccnso: (05:03) Sun well gone for Friday here, only 2 hours until Saturday

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:03) Ireland checking in, not sure what this sun thing your all talking about is =) Is that when its less rain for a while?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:03) I'm not too far behind you Kieth ;-)

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (05:03) I believe you call that a "soft day", James?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:03) LOL James

  Keith ccnso: (05:04) Thats a worry Cheryl...

  Michael Clark: (05:04) Greetings all--no sunrise in Chicago yet.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:04) Sabine! You have some Irish phrases I see =)

  Avri Doria: (05:04) this schedule on the east coast is like farm work.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:04) 5th

  Staffan Jonson: (05:04) You widh!

  Staffan Jonson: (05:04) wish!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:04) wishfull thinkin  Grace

  Andrew Sullivan: (05:04) It only seems like six :)

  Grace Abuhamad: (05:04) I am brain-dead

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (05:04) Lunch here

  Avri Doria: (05:05) Grace, never.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (05:05) Yes @Avri, for ous east coasters apt description..    

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (05:05) Farm work in a desk chair....

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (05:07) Wrong time of day in CA for farm work.

  Avri Doria: (05:10) The overview as well as work on initial response work (very incomplete) can be found in<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tcGHI1fcMyzM4oWOLhvjDY-IqSjKcNKB2JuRS1HJlI8/edit?usp=sharing>

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:12) thanks @avri

  Grace Abuhamad: (05:13) From the 13 May Sidley Memo: By “insider board,” we mean a PTI board comprised of a majority of directors who are employed by ICANN, including members of ICANN management responsible for oversight of the IANA functions.

  Avri Doria: (05:13) makes me axxious everytime i hear the terms insider/outsider

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:13) indeed Avri

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (05:13) I see the terms 'insider' and 'outsider' or 'internal' or 'external' as neutral terms.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (05:15) Thank you Holly.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:15) So its more about the financial relationship (Employer) rahter than the appointing body

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (05:15) My understanding has been corrected.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (05:15) Inside and outside might be "nicer" sounding than insider and outsider....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:16) yes it *is*  a hard sell as I said in the last call @OCL

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:16) you put simethoing on it @OCL ;-)

  Matthew Shears: (05:17) @ Cheryl - hard sell indeed

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (05:17) we should be able to come up with other terms than insider  and outsider -- let's think about it.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (05:17) Food on it at the moment :-)

  Avri Doria: (05:17) i doubt i can sell it.  even to myself.

  Matthew Shears: (05:17) + 1 Avri

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:17) i just sent the most recent DT-SR documents to the list for reference

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (05:17) Subsidiary board vs. independent board?

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:18) yes

  Avri Doria: (05:18) subsidiary vs commuity

  Grace Abuhamad: (05:22) Google Doc DT-N Punch List: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jmdqJkl1X292h9kqjQcYh7gcAW81XhektbeMxADosE/edit

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:25) Thanks  Stephanie

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:25) Very helpful

  Avri Doria: (05:26) Chuck saw them this moring but had not time to think about them.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:27) thanks chuck, i think that is easy to clarify

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:28) i think both of these clarifications make sense chuck

  Avri Doria: (05:28) sound liike reasonable fixes to me

  Matthew Shears: (05:28) agree

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (05:31) could we please have the structure on screen?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (05:31) I am happy with the proposed structure.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:31) could you remind us of the current proposed make up of the ifr, please?

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:32) ●     ccNSO - 1 ●  ccTLDs (non-ccNSO) - 1  ●          Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) - 2 ●        Registrar Stakeholder Group (RsSG) - 1 ●  Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) - 1 ●          Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) - 1 ●     Government Advisory Committee (GAC) - 1 ● Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) - 1 ● Root Server Operators Advisory Committee (RSSAC) - 1 ●  At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) - 1 ● CSC Liaison (selected by CSC) - 1●          Special IFR Team Liaison (selected by IFR Team) - 1●         Liaison from Protocol operational community - 1 (tbd with their approval)●          Liaison from Numbers operational community - 1 (tbd with their approval)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (05:32) thanks!

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:32) it is in the document that i circulated also

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:32) for better formatting

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:32) just before this call

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:32) thanks

  Matthew Shears: (05:33) Agree Lise

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:33) Agree the composition seems well considered

  Grace Abuhamad: (05:33) I posted in chat

  Grace Abuhamad: (05:34) posted in notes....

  Grace Abuhamad: (05:34) (typing too fast for brain)

  Keith ccnso: (05:34) Fully agree with Martin, this is not an appropriate representation methodology

  Keith ccnso: (05:35) Should be, on this basis, at least 1 ccNSO mmember from each of the 5 geographical regions, plus at least 1 non ccNSO cctld representative

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:38) based on CSC input and also IANA customer surveys

  Keith ccnso: (05:39) If there are issues for the ccTLD community, and there is only one or two voices amongst a group of 15 people, then it would be easy and tempting for that group to dismiss the issues as irrelevant

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:40) better balance fine, but this is too far

  Paul Kane: (05:43) This group needs to focus on delivery of service - performance.  IANA is (well should be) Technical

  Staffan Jonson2: (05:44) +1 Lise

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (05:45) I don't think I agree that the cc community is more diverse than the gTLD community.  In some respects the gTLD community may be more diverse but I suspect it isn't worthwhile to debate that.

  Matthew Shears: (05:45) agree that multistakeholder element in the IFR is critical and shoud be taken into account in the balance

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:45) +1 chuck

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (05:46) @Keith: if there are issues for the ccTLD community these would be picked up by the CSC and the full might of CSC documentation will draw everyone to  take action

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:46) still gnso 5, cctlds 3

  Avri Doria: (05:46) personally i could probably live with ut and argue for it.

  Avri Doria: (05:46) ... with it ...

  Lise Fuhr: (05:46) @Chuck I get where you are at but every ccTLD operates after different rules/regulation

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (05:46) @ Martin: compare gTLDs to ccTLDs.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:47) +1 Johnathan =)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:47) and cctlds normally work in their own local multistakeholder community

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (05:47) I could also support one more ccNSO rep.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (05:47) agree Jonathan

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:47) (a community which goes much wider thanicann)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (05:47) If one starts looking at representation one could say GAC only 1? ALAC only 1? What about regional balance and the ALAC should have 5 reps one for each region? I really think it's then getting political

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (05:47) Counting the GNSO as a monolith is rather amusing....

  Keith ccnso: (05:47) gTLDs are run by organisations. ccTLDs are run by organisations, or Governments, or even individuals.

  Matthew Shears: (05:47) + 1 Greg

  Keith ccnso: (05:48) And are only subject to local law, whereas gTLDs are subject to ICANN law

  Paul Kane: (05:48) @Keith +1

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:48) I think more time and thinking might be needed on this one

  Avri Doria: (05:48) GNSO often cancels itself out.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:48) @ greg: but it comes from a particualr skew

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:48) audio?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (05:48) A mythological skew....

  Paul Kane: (05:48) Avri - ccTLDs don't :-)

  Brenden Kuerbis: (05:48) keith, maybe break that down to govt and non-govt and ccNSO couldhave one rep for each camp?

  Paul Kane: (05:49) non-ccNSO Registries need to be included

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:49) seen from US-based contract law

  Avri Doria: (05:49) great we can now argue whci of the two SO is more divided.

  Staffan Jonson2: (05:49) +1 ccNSO - as proposed by Lise, is my preferred solution as a compromice

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:49) @paul i dont think that is contention

  Keith ccnso: (05:49) But then there is huge diversity in say a Govt university, versus a Govt owned for profit teleco

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:49) @staffan:  move in right direction.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (05:49) gTLDs are also run by governments or for their benefit-- look at all the new "geo" TLDs

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:49) But still concerned

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (05:50) by volume of # of TLDs there are more Gs than CCs. Also by number of domains

  Paul Kane: (05:50) Thanks Stephanie

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:50) Also I think future proofing the IFRT needs to be considered aswell given future gtld rounds aswell @OCL so that will increase

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:51) I think SHOULD language vs MUST language re geodiversity

  Paul Kane: (05:53) Can we move away from politics and make sure the techncial review is undertaken. 

  Staffan Jonson2: (05:53) Georepresentativity should not be centrally decided, but on the responsibility of each supproting organization.

  Seun Ojedeji: (05:53) The scope of IFRT is supposed to be for names related function so i don't understand the rationale for including numbers/protocols as well. Unless the scope of IRFT has changed.

  Staffan Jonson2: (05:53) Paul:-)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (05:53) I thikn it is a good suggestion from Avri

  Paul Kane: (05:54) @Alan +1

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (05:54) @Seun: Numbers/Protocols only if they contract with PTI

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:54) we have not specifically covered alternates in this synopsis

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:54) probably an oversight on my part

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:54) (apologies)

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:55) but we can have this discussion still

  Avri Doria: (05:55) doubles the size.

  Seun Ojedeji: (05:55) Okay that would make sense, but at that time, i would not expect them to be liasons and the composition would definately need to be reviewed

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:56) this is not a standing committee.  If a representative drops out part way through a review, I guess the "chartering body" would propose a replacement

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (05:56) @Seun: we'll cross that bridge only if we need to.

  Avri Doria: (05:56) there is a diffeence between having standing alterantes and being able to have someoen else from the ACSOSG to stand in at a meeting.

  Avri Doria: (05:56) full time alternates double the size of the group.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (05:57) noting avri's distinction, i am not opposed to having stand ins for a particular call, but would not want to have standing alternates

  Alan Greenberg: (05:59) Compromises regarding alternative exist. Only 1 has speaking rights and if trave lfunds are provded only 1.

  Staffan Jonson2: (06:00) Frequency: Agree with current proposal

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (06:00) are there people in the WG who think the periodic reviews are too infrequent?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:02) I think prescribing outcomes restricts the ability of the group to function in some ways

  Matthew Shears: (06:04) examples are ok but the decision will obviously be hte IFRT's

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:04) Good idea  @jonathan   the E.g.  will assist

  Avri Doria: (06:05) happy to take a crack at a sentence.

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:06) Thanks Ari

  Paul Kane: (06:08) I would assume that is fine.  non-ccNSO Registries simply don't want ICANN Board to impact their operations

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (06:08) thanks paul and lise

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:09) You could suggest ccNSO with input from the Regional Cc orgnisations, CENTR, ALAC, APTLD

  Staffan Jonson2: (06:09) appointment +1 (but since i represent membership I'll hold my tongue )

  Lise Fuhr: (06:09) @Donna I think that is a good idea

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:11) add AfTLD, please

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:11) ok

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:11) and LACTLD

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:12) and it should be LACTLD

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:12) oops, it shoudl be LACTLD not ALAC. thanks Martin

  Lise Fuhr: (06:13) @Donna and @Martin - yes all Regional Organizations need to be included

  Staffan Jonson2: (06:14) @Lise For sure  all five regional Org.s are to be included

  Avri Doria: (06:16) addition of particpants?

  Avri Doria: (06:16) in additon to members?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:16) Merbers & PArticipants instead Members & Observers?

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (06:17) that is correct martin

  Avri Doria: (06:17) create RFP and recommending a new IFO

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:18) given any separation would directly impact the direct customers, perhaps it would be best to have more respresentation from both ccTLDs and gTLDs, or at least provide a mechanism for broader participatioin.

  Avri Doria: (06:19) already has greater frm direct

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:19) can you speak up a little @donna

  Avri Doria: (06:20) the reason we defined it as a separate process was becasue we assumed different skill sets.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:21) sorry, Donna - not what I was saying.  I'd see the SCWG created in the worm of a CCWG

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:21) very focussed on a clear output

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:21) Freudian typo?

  Avri Doria: (06:21) ( :

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:23) Hee hee! I meant form, but now I don't know

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:24) you don't know or you don't knof?

  Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:24) ;)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:25) Agreed a good auditor can make a terrible procurement manager (Speaking from personal experience)

  Paul Kane: (06:25) Remember 78 ccTLDs are not connected with regional Organisations (and tend to be run by Governments)

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:25) @Paul, then they can represent through the GAC

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:26) @ Stephanie: Are you talking about the ICANN Board or PTI Board?

  Avri Doria: (06:26) basic point on the Board:  whenever there is a recommendation in ICANN, it is the  ICANN Board that has to approve it.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:26) Thanks Avri.

  Matthew Shears: (06:27) why does the ICANN board have to agree initiate a special review

  Avri Doria: (06:27) and we will have the CCWG mechansims to deal with Board rejection.

  Avri Doria: (06:27) ... with ICANN Board ...

  Brenden Kuerbis: (06:27) would be helpful to  reaader to put which board in title of section

  Matthew Shears: (06:27) as the Board will have a say on the resultof the SIFR no?

  Brenden Kuerbis: (06:28) thx

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:28) Assuming ICANN remains the contractor I think the ICANN Board should have a role.

  Avri Doria: (06:28) yes, that is a glovbal edit.  never just Board, alwasy ICANN Board or PTI Board.

  Matthew Shears: (06:28) I thought you said it has to agree the initiation of a sifr

  Avri Doria: (06:29) yes

  Matthew Shears: (06:29) perhaps i misherd

  Matthew Shears: (06:29) is the initiation really necessary?

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (06:29) agreed jonathan

  Matthew Shears: (06:29) so many dependencies.....

  Avri Doria: (06:30) yes, it is a recommendation of a review team and those need I-Board approval

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:30) Good question Matthew on initiation of review.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (06:30) @matthew -- cdt comment is one of the ones under reference here, so your input is appreciated

  Avri Doria: (06:30) and the I-Board does not approve stuff without a community comment.

  Avri Doria: (06:31) so that is a way to include community opinion.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:31) Give the community to make their case without Board approval.

  Avri Doria: (06:31) on the final recommendations

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:33) The Board could be given the opportunity to intiate a review in addition to the community but not require both.

  Matthew Shears: (06:33) intersting Jonathan - thanks

  Matthew Shears: (06:33) + 1 Chuck

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:38) Could we make the two concurrent? That part of the SIRFT initiation is putting the issues out to public comment so that the SIFRT can start its work while the public is commenting.

  Jonathan Robinson: (06:38) @Alan - Reviews Bylaw Mandated AOT Board Initiated

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:39) +1 Donna thats a very important consideration

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:40) That would cause mew to have stability worries if we are talking about that kind of timeline

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:41) @Jonathan, if that's the case that may be too long. I wonder if it is possible to have a a draft RFP developed and ready for use in the event it is required.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (06:41) hi donna, we discussed this at some length and while we think this could be expedited versus the periodic review (as the scope will be exploring the specific issue in question, and not all inputs for the period) we didn't want to do away with any of the phases defined for the IFR

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (06:41) i think in terms of the SCWG having a strawman of items for the RFP is a useful suggestion that could move things along

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (06:42) but that is different from the review phase

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:43) @Avri, I recognise that this must be a serious and well-considered process, but it must be balanced with the urgency of the need for separation.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:43) We would already have an existing contract that would seem to be a big part of a RFP.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:44) @Donna - how long would you predict a separation process would take? Days? Weeks? Months?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:44) agreed, Donna.  The tough decision is to re-bid.  When that's been done the process needs to be quick

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:44) If we get to another separtation it will be at the end of a very long process of escalations and reviews, I think if we get to that point we need to be able to do it in months not years

  Brenden Kuerbis: (06:44) Agree James

  Matthew Shears: (06:44) yes James

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:44) So focus on writing RfP and progressing this to selection and take over by new operator

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:48) Will the SCWG have high intensity work days?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:48) Lost audio?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:48) @Olivier there is not magic timeframe, I was asking if this had been a consideration in the development of process.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (06:48) we have this stated as a high level jonathan

  Matthew Shears: (06:48) no audio

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:48) I support some expansion of the SCWG compostion.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:48) can't seem to raise my hand

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (06:48) burnouts

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:48) I support some expansion of the SCWG.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:48) can't seem to raise my hand

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:48) I feel like there is some opportunity for flexibility here.

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (06:48) Seemed to have lost sound

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (06:49) i reloaded and now adobe is working

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:49) Lots of us lost the adobe room for a few minutes there

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (06:49) i was having troubles too

  Matthew Shears: (06:49) same

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (06:49) Back again, restarted AC as well

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:49) We can pause to make sure all are back

  Marika Konings: (06:49) Please restart Adobe Connect if you are having issues

  Avri Doria: (06:49) lost sound for a while.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:49) Adobe froze on all of us

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:50) Agree with Chuck's suggestion of expanding ccs and gs

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:50) Can we recap

  Greg Shatan: (06:50) I'm back.

  Greg Shatan: (06:50) in black.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:50) before the freezing I had out a note on the chat.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:50) I am back in now.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:50) So my question was: how long was the work of the SCWG expected to take and would the SCWG have intensive work days? :-)

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:51) The Adobe room is tired :) sorry all. At least AC room gets a break for 2h. We will clear it and reload.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:54) It was Martin.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:54) We agree then

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:56) @ Avri:  What if alternates are just observers (literally) except when needed?

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:56) Avri are you concerned about expansion in SCWG and IFRT or just one of the two? Want to be sure in notes....

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (06:57) agree with avri about transparency

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (06:57) we can clarify this

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:57) Thanks. Stephanie!

  Brenden Kuerbis: (06:57) IMO, the IFRT should operate very similar to how the ICGdoes currently

  Lise Fuhr: (06:58) @Avri and @Martin I agree on transparency - I think it should be like in ATRT2, where all meeting and emails are public but you can't intervene

  Paul Kane: (06:58) As before non-ccNSO ccTLD Registries MUST be involved - I don't mind if ccNSO (s)elects the non-ccNSO member

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:58) thanks @paul

  Lise Fuhr: (06:59) @Paul Kane I agree

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:59) @Lise: so members & observers?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:00) yes transparancy is a key issue

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:00) Compliments to DT-N.  Your work was really helpful.

  Avri Doria: (07:00) good guidance for the DT

  Avri Doria: (07:00) thanks

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:00) +1 Chuck great work guys

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:00) I want to make an observation about this separation process we are currently undertaking and any future separation process. The current process is being undertaken because NTIA is comfortable with the IANA service as provided by ICANN: any future separation will be because the IANA service is not being perfromed well -- hence there may be some urgency to conduct a separation review.

  Avri Doria: (07:01) and thansk to Stephanie for taking us through the DT's work.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:01) yes agreed great work indeed

  Matthew Shears: (07:01) excellent work

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:01) yes, good work the N team

  Lise Fuhr: (07:01) @OCL - all meetings recorded and able to listen to live

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (07:01) thank you all for the input, this has been a very productive session

  Lise Fuhr: (07:01) Thank you all

  Staffan Jonson2: (07:01) Thank You all

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (07:01) by all

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:01) thanks all

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:01) thanks all

  jorge cancio (GAC): (07:01) bye

  Ørnulf Storm, Norway: (07:01) thanks all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:02) thanks all, bye

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (07:02) bye