Proposed Agenda 

1. Opening Remarks

2. Transfer of Final Proposal 

3. Communication Points

4. ICANN 53 -- Buenos Aires

5. Beyond ICANN 53

Notes

1. Opening Remarks

• Final proposal to be distributed to chartering organizations later today
• No objections or minority statements received
• Need to start looking ahead to the ICANN meeting in BA in order to secure the support of the chartering organizations
• Need support from the members and participants in doing so. All to serve as ambassadors for the proposal and assist in securing support.

2. Transfer of Final Proposal

• CWG-Co-Chairs to transfer proposal to chartering organizations today together with a coverning note which will also highlight 
  work remaining such as SLEs (staff to project manage together with DTA members, also ensure NTIA approval for such work 
  as well as secure possible budget needed). 
• Consider renaming DTA to SLE ad-hoc working group with possible additions to original membership of DTA which includes 3 ccTLD 
  and 3 gTLD registry reps (see also proposed work plan circulated by Paul Kane to CWG mailing list). A URL link will be created so 
  that work in progress can be followed by anyone interested. Do GNSO and ccNSO need to give formal approval? Yes, it may be 
  helpful to get ccNSO/GNSO support for continuing with this work - can be done as part of the hand-over of the final proposal. 
• IPR issue will also be flagged in the cover letter and discussed with the client committee. Will require further co-ordination with 
  ICG and other operational communities. 

3. Communication Points

• Two webinars taking place today (one this morning, one later this afternoon). Over 60 participants attended the first webinar - several questions 
  regarding process following adoption by chartering organizations. 
• Slide deck will be made available to all, in pdf and ppt format, the latter allowing for customization as needed. 
• Linkage with CCWG needs to be well understood. Chairs of both groups working on a blog that will highlight linkage and co-operation between the two groups as well as the conditionality

4. ICANN 53 -- Buenos Aires

• See ICANN 53 relevant meetings schedule on the wiki (https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/75jeBQ). 
• Important to take people along on the journey that has occurred, but also explaining substance and linkage with CCWG.
• Clarify that both ccNSO and GNSO need to approve initiation of IFR (ensure that there is no misunderstanding). For example, 'Both of the 
  ccNSO and GNSO Councils (each by a supermajority)'.
• Also clarify that CSC escalates to ccNSO and GNSO, does not initiate an IFR on its own.
• CCWG will take lead on town hall meeting, with contribution from CWG-Stewardship.

5. Beyond ICANN 53

• Provided no objections are made / approvals received in BA, transmittal to the ICG would be the next step. 
• How to follow up on work of SlEs as well as implementation related issues? Charter foresees that 'the CWG will consult with the ICG representatives 
  to determine when it can consider its work completed'.
• Advisable to have process in place if questions come back from chartering organizations / ICG. 
• Need to revisit mandate for Sidley, in consultation with ICANN to determine what role, if any  it would play following submission of final proposal to 
  chartering organizations, in relation to implementation. 

Action Items

none

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #59_ 11 June.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #59_ 11 June.pdf

Recordings

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5arccsb5a1/

The MP3 recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-11jun15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

Marika Konings: Welcome to the CWG-Stewardship meeting #59 on 11 June 2015

 --------------- (06/11/2015 05:58) ---------------

Martin Boyle, Nominet: Hi all

Allan MacGillivray: Hello everyone

Keith ccNSO: Hi all

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: Morning all

Leon Sanchez: Hello everyone

Lise Fuhr: Hello

Martin Boyle, Nominet: must be Jaap joined!

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: Working buy quiet Keith

Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): Yup

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: *but

Staffan Jonson: Hi all

Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large): hi, all.

Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large): webinar is still going on, though. :p

Brenda Brewer: Seun Ojediji and Olivier Crepin-Leblond are on audio only at this time.

jorge cancio (GAC): hi

Greg Shatan: Hello all.

Seun Ojedeji: Hi Greg

Donna Austin, RySG: who would comprise the WG? would it be the DT-A members?

 --------------- (06/11/2015 06:15) ---------------

Martin Boyle, Nominet: @Keith +1

Paul Kane: That would be welcome

Paul Kane: @Keith +1

Martin Boyle, Nominet: nice one Jonathan

Martin Boyle, Nominet: thought you had seen a problem!

Paul Kane: There will be presentations in BA by SLE Working Group members

Lise Fuhr: My call dropped

Keith ccNSO: Fantastic thanks Jonathan

Lise Fuhr: I am back

Keith ccNSO: Certainly don't want to exclude any interested parties

Keith ccNSO: But its essentially formally recognising the group that already exists

 --------------- (06/11/2015 06:23) ---------------

Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): The group needs no formal recognition.  Its work will need to be formally dealt with as it is out of phase with the final proposal.

Jonathan Robinson: I understand that at least one of the otehr RFP respondents has not yet concluded Jonathan Robinson: In conversation with the ICG chairs yesterday, they were not unduly concerned with this point

Donna Austin, RySG: https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-services

 Jonathan Robinson: @Donna - thank-you.

Matthew Shears: at this juncture clarity on the proposal itself is critical to those outside the WG

Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): Each means both, not either.

Brenden Kuerbis: Yes

Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): I have a proposal

Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): I think the concern is a sentence in the slide that does not use the term each.

 --------------- (06/11/2015 06:35) ---------------

Matthew Shears: I agree with the need to use "a supermajority of both the ccNSO and GNSO"

Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)."

Brenden Kuerbis: Why would we want to create ambiguity?

Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): The last "or" in the above is troubling.

Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): both of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils (each by a supermajority...)

Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): The slide was even wronger.

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: Sharons proposed language makes it unambigous

Alan Greenberg: I think I hear Olivier ask to speak.

Seun Ojedeji: Thats what i understand initiate to mean as well

Mary Uduma: +1 chuck

Alan Greenberg: Regarding the wording change, it seems to occur twice, in para 125 and 127.

Alan Greenberg: And perhaps in Annex as well.

Grace Abuhamad: paragraphs, 125, 127, and 308. I've got you covered, Alan :)

Alan Greenberg: :-)

 --------------- (06/11/2015 06:42) ---------------

Chuck Gomes (RySG): Regardless of how some of us understand 'initiate' to mean, some will misinterpret it to conclude that the CSC may call for a Special IFR.  It's easy to avoid this.

Seun Ojedeji: @Chuck i agree

Mary Uduma: Agree Chuck

 --------------- (06/11/2015 06:45) ---------------

Jonathan Robinson: The CWG will consult with the ICG representatives to determine when it can consider its work completed. The CWG and any sub-working groups shall be dissolved upon receipt of the notification of the Chairs of the chartering organizations or their designated representatives.

Seun Ojedeji: Noted @jonathan

Seun Ojedeji: i think thats a reasonable approach...one thing. who does follow-up on implementation? i mean will the cwg work be complete without implmentation

Chuck Gomes (RySG): The CWG should ensure thst implemention is consistent with its recommendations.

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: Does the engagement letter and agreement with ICANN cover non advisory role for Sidleyu though?

 --------------- (06/11/2015 06:50) ---------------

Mary Uduma: What happens if ICG makes demands for further work on the proposal, who whill attend to such questions?

Mary Uduma: will?

Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): correct

Mary Uduma: If the CWG is dissolved?

Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO): There is no clock.

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: Has there been any discussion with the ICG on the 'testing period' process for us? I know we are not at that stage yet but its something we should start thinking about now

Lise Fuhr: No thank you

Chuck Gomes (RySG): Thanks everyone.

Lise Fuhr: Bye all,

Leon Sanchez: thanks everyone. See you in the webinar

Lise Fuhr: Too early sorry

Lise Fuhr: Good bye

Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: bye all

Keith ccNSO: Thanks Jonathan and Lise

Staffan Jonson: Bye all, see you in BA

jorge cancio (GAC): thanks and bye