Proposed Agenda

1. Opening Remarks

2. Outreach Efforts 

    a. Recent Webinars

    b. Upcoming Webinars

    c. Outreach to IANAPLAN & CRISP 

    d. CCWG-Accountability Coordination

    e. Members' outreach summary 

3. Status of Proposal and Open Issues

    a. Submission to FY16 Budget & Operating Plan Public Comment Period

    b. DT-A on SLEs

    c. DT-F on Root Zone Environment Relationships

    d. PTI Board Composition

    e. Section IV (Cheryl update)

    f. Other issues?

4. CCWG-Accountability Dependencies 

5. AOB

6. Closing Remarks

Notes

Roll call based on AC attendance. No one on audio only.

1. Opening Remarks

• Number of outstanding items have been identified in the punch list - further work of the client committee expected
• Any concerns or issues that have arisen as a result of the public comment period? None at this stage. 3 Comments have been submitted to date (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15/)

2. Outreach Efforts

• See overview of outreach efforts shared during the call
• Slide deck that has been used for webinars can also be used by members / participants in their respective outreach efforts (see https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/pages/98473197/Webinars+24+April+2015) 
• Two additional webinars have been scheduled on 6 and 7 May to allow for additional questions. If additional time is available, chairs could consider answering questions that have been raised to date in the public comment forum.
• Call earlier today with CRISP Team - planning to have other calls with CRISP Team and outreach to IANAPLAN to enhance understanding of respective proposals and discuss possible implications for the different communities.
• Continued co-ordination with CCWG Chairs - Chairs co-ordination call scheduled for later today
• Role of ICG to co-ordinate, but CWG-Chairs can assist by ensuring clarification where needed and dialogue with other proposers. 
• Members' outreach summary: two webinars organized for ccTLD community (organizers: Paul Kane and Staffan Jonson) - some concern expressed on how proposal can be considered in current timeframe. ALAC organized a webinar for the At-Large community. GAC will have two conferences on CWG proposal on 5th May. ICANN's GSE team organised with NCSG a civil society webinar on the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability. RySG has discussed it during its meeting last week and is planning a webinar next week which will also be offered to the RrSG. 

3. Status of Proposal and Open Issues

    a. Submission to FY16 Budget & Operating Plan Public Comment Period

Deadline for comments is approaching. Proposed input has been shared with the CWG (taking work of DT that is included in the draft proposal and submit that to the public comment forum). No objections received to submitting the comment as proposed.

Action item: Submit comment to public comment forum by deadline.

    b. DT-A on SLEs

DT has requested release of work/process flow charts to inform further conversations. Approval needs to be provided by NTIA for this release. Following that, further work will be undertaken on this issue. Concerns expressed by others concerning the time it is taking to provide the relevant information to move this work forward. Is there any link between confidential reports that are currently provided by IANA to NTIA and SLEs? If so, how are these expected to be dealt with. DT A is currently only aware of day-to-day transactions, not any other activities. Work flow charts may provide further insights into where other SLEs may be required. Confidential reports contain registry information that may be sensitive and as such are kept confidential - something that may need further consideration. 

    c. DT-F on Root Zone Environment Relationships

There are a number of loose ends that will need to be addressed, in particular the overlap with DT C with regards to changes to the root zone architecture. Need direction on who/how to handle this. 

Action item: Alan to list remaining issues so that the CWG can decide how to best tackle those.

    d. PTI Board

Some discussion has already commenced on the list - form should folllow function. CWG should decide what the role of the PTI Board is before deciding who is on it. Board derives from the fact that PTI would be a separate legal entity - as a result, minimal legal function. See also Sidley memo. If CWG would go further than minimal legal function, CWG would need to take into account any accountability aspects that may need to be addressed. CWG could consider minimum Board but leave option open to expand should additional functions be identified at a later stage. Other communities may also have input on this topic. For example, if other communities would decide to contract directly with PTI, this could result in additional responsibilities? To maximise separability, all assets should sit with PTI (incl. PTI being party to the contracts). Checks and balances would come from ICANN - hence the importance of CCWG-Accountability work. Selection of PTI Board members is important issue based on input received to date. Not decided yet how board members would be selected. CWG is concious that this is an area of sensitivity, but as a wholly owned subsidiary / affiliate it may be less of a concern? Also, CWG has indicated preference for 'lightweight' solution so that should also be factored in. Additional input on this topic may also be received in response to public comment. 

Action item: CWG members encouraged to share further comments and input on this issue. 

    e. Section IV (Cheryl update)

Cannot apply stress test scenarios of CCWG (currently on version 10.3) until mechanisms and structures have been designed / agreed upon. A subset of those stress tests are related to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Avri and Cheryl reviewed stress tests and contingencies that are in Section IV which seem to cover all that is needed from the perspective of the stress tests that have been developed by the CCWG. Further input may be received in response to the public comment forum.

    f. Other issues?

4. Client Committee Update & Issues

Call scheduled today at 14.00 UTC.

a. Memo on PTI Board & Costs

Circulated to CWG list 

b. Punch list

New punch list of open items has been circulated. Will be discussed on client committee cal today and possible further refined, following which it will be circulated to CWG list.

c. CCWG Dependencies

Client committee keeps on monitoring CCWG dependencies. Sidley also provides support to the CCWG. 

d. Other

No major outstanding items.

Action item: CWG encouraged to review punch list and start thinking about items on the punch list and how to deal with those.

5. CCWG-Accountability Dependencies 

Ongoing engagement with CCWG will be required as work progresses. IANA Function Review bylaw (AoC type review) - AoC reviews are not expected to be dealt with as 'fundamental' bylaws from the CCWG perspective. IANA Function Review could be dealt with separately as a fundamental bylaw if needed / desirable. Seperation process function - does that need a separate bylaw or would that get included in the IANA Function Review? If it is separate, would the CCWG present it, or would the CWG do so?

Action item: CWG Chairs to discuss dependencies further with CCWG Chairs in meeting later today.

6. AOB

• Frequency of meetings - can we go back to 1 meeting per week? Consider using 2nd meeting time to dig into specific topics that need resolution. Easier to cancel meetings than to reschedule. Maybe leave on the schedule, but decide day prior to the meeting whether or not to go ahead with the meeting. Agreed to keep placeholder for meetings - chairs to decide at least 24 hours ahead of meeting whether meeting should be cancelled. 
• Send note to ICANN Finance Team on current state of work, including Sidley work on PTI and request whether there are any initial considerations with regard to possible budget implications as well as FY16 budget. This would be separate from the public comment submission.

Action item: Chairs to reach out to ICANN Finance team on current state of work, including Sidley work on PTI and request whether there are any initial considerations with regard to possible budget implications as well as FY16 budget. 

• How should work continue on open items such as Annex L / Separation Mechanism? Chairs to further consider, but DT leads or individuals should feel encouraged to list open items so that these can be cross-checked with the punch list.

Action item: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism

Action Items

Action item: Submit comment to public comment forum by deadline.

Action item: CWG members encouraged to share further comments and input on this issue. 

Action item: CWG encouraged to review punch list and start thinking about items on the punch list and how to deal with those.

Action item: CWG Chairs to discuss dependencies further with CCWG Chairs in meeting later today.

Action item: Chairs to reach out to ICANN Finance team on current state of work, including Sidley work on PTI and request whether there are any initial considerations with regard to possible budget implications as well as FY16 budget. 

Action item: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #43 30 April.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #43 30 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9nfnqyepg3/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-30apr15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (4/30/2015 05:40) Good Day everyone!  Welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #43 on 30 April 2015.

  Andrew Sullivan: (05:53) Hi there.  I'll only be here for half an hour or so, as I have a 13:00 meeting I have to go to

  Andrew Sullivan: (05:53) (You should list me as "regrets", I think.)

  Jonathan Robinson: (05:56) Hello All. Thanks for making an early start Sharon!

  Grace Abuhamad: (05:58) @andrew, even if you atttend for just 30min, we list you as present. if you want to be listed as an apology, we can do that for you ...

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (05:59) Hi everyone!

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (05:59) good morning all

  Amrita: (05:59) Hi everyone

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC) (SSAC): (05:59) Hi all.

  Allan MacGillivray: (05:59) Good morning/afternoon to everyone

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:01) Hi all...

  Lise Fuhr: (06:01) Hello all

  Staffan Jonson: (06:02) Hello All

  Andrew Sullivan: (06:02) @grace up to you.  I'll probably make 35 mins or so, but it looks from the agenda like the meat will only just be started then

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:05) 3 comments : http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15/

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (06:05) 3 so far

  Staffan Jonson: (06:06) Some positive feed back on proposal 2 beeing easier

  Staffan Jonson: (06:06) easier to read

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:07) Webinar slides and transcripts etc: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/pages/98473197/Webinars+24+April+2015

  Brenden Kuerbis: (06:12) Hi everyone

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:20) We have had many GAC members following the CWG webinars - expect many will attend on the 6 and 7th  - We will also have two GAC conferences on CWG proposal on the 5th of May

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:20) Yes Alan  thought it went well also...

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:21) Good one Avri. I should have added that

  Jonathan Robinson: (06:21) The presentation / slides from Xplane are helpful including the fact that they are not "standard" powerpoint type slides but rather assist explanation and discussion

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:21) Thanks Elise for GAC update.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:22) hard to hear you Donna

  Avri Doria: (06:22) Yeah Grace, we would not have had slides without your last minute help.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:22) good luck :)

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:23) wrong chat....

  Staffan Jonson: (06:23) We're also having a local 'Swedish' coordination meeting in a week or so, with representatives from CWG, CRIPS, ICG, & GAC etc.

  Lise Fuhr: (06:24) Yes very good to hear about all the different kind of outreach that has been done - Thank you

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:28) @ Olivier:  The language is exactly what is in the draft proposal.

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:28) @Olivier -- this text has been in the proposal for a few weeks now. Are you suggesting an edit to proposal text?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:28) @Chuck: yes I noticed - sorry I did not poin this out earlier. It might be a measure of context

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:30) it's not big deal

  Lise Fuhr: (06:30) I agree let's stick to the text as in the proposal

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:30) Happy with the rest of the Statement. Well done!

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:34) The slow responsiveness on the SLE issue by ICANN staff (legal or whoevery) is very disappointing.

  Avri Doria: (06:34) This difficulty getting access to a document seems rather unseemly.

  Avri Doria: (06:34) and very inappropriate

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:36) Very inappropriate and surprising considering that ICANN staff appear to want this process to be timely.

  Andrew Sullivan: (06:36) I'm afraid I must drop now.  Bye all

  Avri Doria: (06:36) wonder where the holdup is?  how far up the chain does such a request have to go?

  Staffan Jonson: (06:39) Just by quriousity: Why are they deemed secret? What info need to be safeguarded, and from what?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:40) @ Jonathan & Lise: I wonder if it might help for you as chairs to escalate the SLE issue as you see fit?

  Lise Fuhr: (06:41) @Chuck we will consider doing so

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:42) Regarding confidential IANA reports, can't registry names and strings simply be redacted?

  Alan Greenberg: (06:44) Chuck, I am pretty sure based on what I have been told that redacting registry names would not be sufficient to mask the event. The question is to what extent is it impotant that some entity outside of IANA itself really needs those reports.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:45) @ Alan:  To the extent that such reports relate to IANA performance, they are important.

  Avri Doria: (06:46) It may be necessary to change the format of  report IANA does going forward but  in the meantime they should be allowed to inform this work to avoid slipping shceudles because  of intransigence.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:49) Happy to help on overlap with DT C

  Staffan Jonson: (06:51) Thanks Donna, so am I if I can help. Should we use the DT lists?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:56) @Alan, burning the ICANN candle at both ends?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:57) I don't understand what that means: PTI should hold the contracts.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (06:58) Be the party to the contract

  Staffan Jonson: (07:00) I also hear concern voiced within GAC community on how PTI board is populated.

  Suzanne Woolf: (07:00) In the case of the IETF at least, I'm not sure how much interest there is in "accountability" of ICANN even if it holds the contract; the ability to terminate the contract has been in the past seen as all the accountability they need from ICANN, and they maintain accountability to their community for decisions about the protocol parameters registries.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:00) Good point that SOs could select board member(s) to both ICANN _and_ PTI boards.  They are focused on different aspects of naming (policy and implementation, respectively)

  Staffan Jonson: (07:01) Especially since Authorization function is fading away...

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (07:02) +1 Lise

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:07) Could it make sense for the NomCom to select some or all members of the PTI Board?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:08) If, and I don't know that I agree with this premise yet, but if the community was to appoint some Board members then the NomCom may be the best vehicle to do this.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (07:08) +1 Greg: the symbolism of the PTI Board is large

  Lise Fuhr: (07:09) A good point Avri

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (07:09) Jonathan: it is going to be ALL about politics and optics.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (07:09) Sorry -

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (07:10) The function should be entirely functional/operational

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:10) I see the symbolism being about accountability and transfer to the global multistakeholder community.  I think that may go deeper than politics and optics.  But I agree that function should not be sacrificed to symbolism.

  Staffan Jonson: (07:11) Oliver: +1 and that is exctly why we need to consider GAc:s headaches (as we did with the US congress headache). In all other aspects I'm happy with Lises approach

  Staffan Jonson: (07:11) And Maartens ;-)

  Avri Doria: (07:11) AOB: I have 2 issues for 'other issues'. one related to CCWG and AOC- type reviews and one about post IFR separability process

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:11) So, initially that is a CSC discussion with the PTI

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:12) My understanding is that the existence of the PTI doesn't change organisational structure that currently exists.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (07:12) @Alan - agree scenario planning will help advise the decision

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:13) OTOH, what if ICANN is sending policy decisions that put at risk stability of IANA? How do we ensure that PTI board can refuse (under limited circumstances) to implement?

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (07:14) @Donna: it does change if the board will be non ICANN

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:14) @Maarten: agree, I'm personally not convinced yet that the Board needs to be non-ICANN

  Jonathan Robinson: (07:16) @Brenden. Your question assumes a role for the board. If one assumes no functional or operational role for the PTI board, how might your concern be otherwise dealt with using entities or mechanisms currently proposed?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (07:17) The concern is dealt with through the ICANN accountability mechanisms - e.g., Board recall (which has a deterrent effect even if never exercised)

  Alan Greenberg: (07:18) A really minimal PTI Board implies that there *IS* a management "function" or "committee" on the other side of the wall - ie ICANN, and so far we have not designed such agroup.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (07:20) Even if ICANN appoints the directors, the community could the dictate titles of the ICANN individuals who would serve., ensuring they are the right individuals with oversight on IANA

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:21) @Joanathan Ideally, ICANN policy process addresses these concerns, so no need for PTI board role.  Ultimately, as Sharon suggests ICANN board recall. 

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:23) I thought the idea on list of ASO, IETF liaison and SOs appointments to PTI Board makes sense. Grounds the PTI board in 3 communities, focused on operational concerns.

  Lise Fuhr: (07:23) @Cheryl thank you so much - that sounds great!

  Avri Doria: (07:23) but of course people have to review the wwords in the CCWG report to make sure they think so too.

  Lise Fuhr: (07:24) @Avri - Yes

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (07:24) @Cheryl: that's reassuring

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:24) What  niot just totally trust my judgement and yours Avri :-)

  Avri Doria: (07:24) i don trust it that much.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:24) I guess if there are two of you that is multistakeholder.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:25) @ Greg:  It's not gender diversie.  :)

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (07:26) Must drop of now - have a nice weekend

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:26) reminder  the  Wiki  for the Stress Tests  is open to all to contribute  and indeed the weekly telecinferences of the Stress test Working Party of the CCWG  are also open and your alll welcome to join  (noting many of you already do attend of couse :-)  this meeting is hels  Tue at 1100 UTC

  Alan Greenberg: (07:28) To reply to Sharon a screen up, yes, ICANN could identify the "right" people to the PTI Board, but one of the reasons we started on this path to a separate IANA corp was to ensure a level of independance from ICANN.

  Brenda Brewer: (07:28) @ Cheryl:  Stress Tests Meetings are Wednesdays at 11:00 UTC

  Lise Fuhr: (07:29) @Elise you too

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:30) @Alan, I'm not sure I agree with your point about a 'level of independence from ICANN'. I think there was an intention to formalise the separation of IANA from policy, but I don't agree with level of independence.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:31) Thanks  Brenda  I always  just think of the world as a day behind us here in the antipodeas  but at that point  in the time cycle  yes we are the same day  (sorry )    if in doubbt  check with Brenda  :-)

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (07:32) @Avri - could bifurcate this and have AoC non-fundamental and IFR as fundamental

  Avri Doria: (07:36) Sharon, ok, but there is the commonality between all of theose reviews.  To complicate things. In CCWG i am going to request that at least ATRT type review be fundamental as well.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:37) Great point, that has been conveyed to CCWG?

  Alan Greenberg: (07:37) @Sharon, yes, I just used budget veto as an example.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:37) yes

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (07:37) Thanks Alan.  Understood.  Since CCWG has been focused on budget/strategic plan as places for veto, just wanted to highlight that CWG needs one more veto right

  Lise Fuhr: (07:37) Yes we can discuss today

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:42) agree  with that plan  Chuck / Avri

  Lise Fuhr: (07:49) OK I am fine with that

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:49) thanks everyone .... good call...   talk again soon...  Bye or now...

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:49) Thanks all.

  Lise Fuhr: (07:49) THank you all and bye

  Staffan Jonson: (07:49) Thank You all

  markus kummer: (07:49) Thanks and good-bye -- good call!

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:49) Thanks everyone.

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (07:49) thanks

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:49) bye all

  Sivasubramanian M: (07:50) Thanks All.

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC) (SSAC): (07:50) Bye

  Allan MacGillivray: (07:50) Bye all