IANA CWG Meeting #65 (10 Sept @ 17:00 UTC)

Attendees:

Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eduardo Diaz, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji (10)

Participants: Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Wilkinson, Chuck Gomes, Harold Arcos, Mark Carvell, Martin Boyle, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Suzanne Woolf, Tracy Hackshaw (11)

Legal Counsel: Holly Gregory, Sharon Flanagan

Staff: Alain Durand, Bart Boswinkel, Brenda Brewer, David Conrad, Grace Abuhamad

Apologies: Keith Davidson

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**

Agenda

1. Opening Remarks
2. 2nd reading of SLEWG output (see attached)
3. Update on legal work
4. Public Comment to CCWG-Accountability
5. AOB
6. Closing Remarks

Notes

1. Opening Remarks

- Two main topics for today: SLEs and CCWG comment
- Will also have an update on the legal work
- Chairs submmitted a comment to the ICG Public Comment period regarding IANA IPR resolution.

2. 2nd reading of SLEWG output

- Paul Kane has sent edited version based on last week's call
- Martin Boyle submitted edits on list that will be discussed

Review of edits made since last week:

- P.8 added a parenthetical phase on transfer verification
- P. 11, P.15, P.16, and P.23 switched "ie" to "eg" to reflect difference for some ccTLDs with regard to Root Zone changes
- P.17 removed the prefix "note" and involved the CSC
- P.25 added a phrase to complement text on standardization

Martin's proposed edits:

- P.8 -- in Category IV, would prefer deletion of the word "externally" --> Change accepted --> COMPLETE: delete the word "externally" on page 8
- P. 11, P.15, P.16, P.23 : change "Time for third-party review of request (e.g.by ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification parties)" to "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board adoption of the change report." Could also accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." --> Change modified --> COMPLETE change to "e.g. by the ICANN Board of Directors, the PTI Board of Directors, or other relevant verification parties"
- P. 17 Process performance note: incorporate in the table --> change modified --> COMPLETE put this sentence in bold font so as to show emphasis.

Second reading: any objections to this document being considered final? No objections noted.

Action (Chairs): send the SLE final document to the ICG.

3. Update on legal work

- Met with Client Committee last week
- Bylaws work is being tracked -- updated version was sent on 8 September

4. Public Comment to CCWG-Accountability

- Budget: the CWG is happy with veto right (instead of approval).
- Community Empowerment Mechanism: requirement met
- IFR/Special IFR: requirement met
- CSC: requirement met
- PTI: requirement met
- Separation Process: requirement met
- Appeals mechanism: There needs to be some mechanism through which actions or inactions of PTI can be addressed. If the IRP can meet the CWG requirement for PTI appeals. If not, this needs to be delevoped. Additional work that needs to be developed includes standard for PTI review.
- Fundamental Bylaws: requirement met

Action (Sidley): edit and update the document (Sharon confirms she can deliver to CWG today)

CWG will have 24h to approve and then the CWG Chairs will submit this into the CCWG public comment before its close on 12 September at 23:59 UTC

5. AOB

Cancel next week's meeting and restart calls on 24 September at 17:00 UTC

6. Closing Remarks

Thank you for participating -- next call will address implementation role, if any.

Action Items

Action (Chairs): send the SLE final document to the ICG.
Action (Sidley): edit and update the document (Sharon confirms she can deliver to CWG today)

Transcript

Recordings

Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3nkas2k8td/
MP3 recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-10sep15-en.mp3

Documents

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (9/10/2015 10:51) Welcome to CWG IANA Meeting #64 on 10 September.

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:50) Hello! A sunny day for a change here: not seen many of these this year!

Lise Fuhr: (11:52) Hi All

Sivasubramanian M: (11:52) hello

Brenda Brewer: (11:53) Thank you Paul!

Brenda Brewer: (11:57) Olivier is on audio only at this time

Grace Abuhamad: (12:01) Thanks Brenda -- Olivier is now in the room

Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:04) I am now in Adobe.

Cheryl LangdonOrr: (12:04) :-) :-) :-)

Grace Abuhamad: (12:04) Welcome Chuck

Andrew Sullivan: (12:05) Sorry to be late. Hello.

Grace Abuhamad: (12:07) The correct version is on screen @Paul. Document is unsynced.

Greg Shatan: (12:07) My hat

Greg Shatan: (12:08) is off to the person who picked up the i.e. and e.g. issue.

Greg Shatan: (12:08) It's one of my favorite nitpicks, and guaranteed to make one unpopular by raising it. :-)

Paul Kane: (12:23) I don't have a strong view ....

Paul Kane: (12:23) I'll delete externally

Paul Kane: (12:24) Alan ...

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:24) we will still need to discuss ICANN vs PTI Board role

Paul Kane: (12:26) This is not every day performance - this is JUST create and Transfer a ccTLD

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:26) but not necessarily now!

Paul Kane: (12:26) Lise - agree

Grace Abuhamad: (12:29) Please note that Martin's edits would apply to P. 11, P.15, P.16, and P.23

Cheryl LangdonOrr: (12:29) understood Grace

Greg Shatan: (12:32) These are not graven in stone. The SLE can change when underlying circumstances change.

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:32) we do too Paul

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:32) But the process is getting set: how will the CSC change it?

Paul Kane: (12:34) This is a TIME document not a Policy doc

Cheryl LangdonOrr: (12:35) exactly Jonathan

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:40) that's fine Jonathan

Paul Kane: (12:40) done

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:40) I'm not fixed on [ ]!

Jonathan Robinson: (12:40) :-]

Seun Ojedeji: (12:41) @Paul whats the rush about getting the SLE done? Please remember the numbers and protocols also have their SLA as well. So that of names will not necessarily delay the process as much as other operational communities SLA. If there is something to edit in the current SLE then we should. Although i understand the need to be proactive which is fine. (I sense Paul is quite stressed up ;) )

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:43) can't we keep the existing then?

Grace Abuhamad: (12:44) All -- we suggest extending the call by 30min, ending at 18:30 UTC

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:44) but I won't die in the ditch on this.

Paul Kane: (12:45) Bold - done

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:45) and me

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:46) that's it fromme!

Paul Kane: (12:47) Thank you everyone ...

Jonathan Robinson: (12:47) @Martin. Agreed. Thank you for your dilligence on this

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:48) Sorry to be so pig-headed on this :-[

Jonathan Robinson: (12:49) This kind of detail can become very improtant when not fone properly

Seun Ojedeji: (12:51) I was trying to raise my hand but network is failing on me. I wanted to indicate that i don't think this should be sent as part of CWG response to ICG PC, it can certainly be sent seperately to them

Lise Fuhr: (12:51) @Paul - sorry forgot to thank you and the group for the great amount of work you have put into the SLE

Seun Ojedeji: (12:52) The SLE is not a response expected by ICG in the PC as there were specific questions ICG asked.

Greg Shatan: (12:53) The bylaws matrix was much more colorful....

Lise Fuhr: (12:57) @Seun no but it is a good opportunity to submit the SLE and to have it included

Allan MacGillivray: (13:04) @Alan -

Seun Ojedeji: (13:04) To have it included in the current PC document? Does not sound right to me as many people already made their comments. Submitting it so that it can be included in the final proposal from ICG is fine. I just don't get the advantage of sending it as a response to ICG PC instead of the Co-Chiars formerly forwarding to the ICG independently. Are we expecting public comment on the SLE at this stage of the ICG PC

Jonathan Robinson: (13:05) @Alan. Precisely, this does not preclude a party from undertaken a board reconsideration. As I read it, it provides the IRP as the ultimate recourse.

Allan MacGillivray: (13:06) +1 Jonathan

Andrew Sullivan: (13:06) I regard it as a bug in the CWG document that the IRP was included at all. But given that it's there

Andrew Sullivan: (13:06) there's no way around it

Alan Greenberg: (13:07) For the IRP to judge whether PTI did something correctly is a real mangling of the IRP which is looking specifically at following ICANN Bylaws

Lise Fuhr: (13:07) @Seun if we do it either way it is not going to be subject to public comments.

Andrew Sullivan: (13:07) I completely agree with Alan that it's a bad idea. But it's what's in the document

Andrew Sullivan: (13:07) (Also, I'm late for another meeting, so I have to drop.)

Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (13:09) IRP as contemplated is a process designed to determine whether or not ICANN/ICANN Board followed Articles and Bylaws. It is contemplated that a party will need to use reconsideration mechanism first if available.

Seun Ojedeji: (13:09) Okay since we are not expecting public comment on the SLE by sending via PC then that clarifies it for me. Thanks Lise

Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (13:09) PTI could have its own IRP process

Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:10) We need a strenthened IRP as proposed by the CCWG.

Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (13:11) It sounds like CWG needs to do some more work on how it envisions this working.

Greg Shatan: (13:12) We can't just invoke the IRP as a totem.. It needs to be propserly specified....

Cheryl LangdonOrr: (13:13) yes Sharon

Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (13:14) sorry I just hung up by mistake. My point was that the more clarity the CWG can provide in its comment the better

Allan MacGillivray: (13:14) We could say that the appeal mechanism in respect of PTI decsions need not be the same as that for ICANN decisions.

Avri Doria: (13:14) do we need to explicitly state the the IRP serves PTI issues.

Seun Ojedeji: (13:15) @Paul saw your PM but unable to respond as for some unknown reason i am getting ("Private chat is disabled by host"). Thanks for all the work youput in.

Avri Doria: (13:15) does CCWG need to state that explicitly.

Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (13:16) Avri, I am concerned that the CCWG has contemplated the IRP as focused on Article and Bylaw non-compliance

Avri Doria: (13:17) right, that is why explicit mention may be needed

Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (13:17) I'm back on

Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (13:18) +1 Allan M. re PTI appeal mechanism need not be same as ICANN IRP

Greg Shatan: (13:19) If we say that our dependency is not met, we need to point the way toward a solution.

Cheryl LangdonOrr: (13:19) agree with that Holly

Greg Shatan: (13:20) Setting up a whole new appeal mechanism is really going to be time-consuming! That does not seem like the simple path.

Avri Doria: (13:20) creating yet another redress mechanism?

Grace Abuhamad: (13:21) @Paul -- thank you for sending the revised and final document to the list. You have incorporated all the changes that were listed as actions, so I have changed the "action" to "complete"

Greg Shatan: (13:21) If it's not the IRP, what is the CCWG supposed to do?!

Greg Shatan: (13:22) I think the IRP could be empowered to deal with PTI/IANA issues in a single paragraph.

Allan MacGillivray: (13:22) We could perhaps propose a simpler version of the IRP as proposed, for example, require just a single panelist, rather than 3.

Avri Doria: (13:23) i have trouble coping with the idea of creating yet another new mechansim, i hope the ccwg can adapt to the CWG requirement. that is one of the points of the CCWG's job.

Greg Shatan: (13:23) I dont' think we can say that it is met, as is. PTI/IANA has fallen through the cracks.

Avri Doria: (13:24) it obviously did.

Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (13:25) Greg: All PTI related claims? What standards apply?

Greg Shatan: (13:26) Whatever we said in our Proposal. :-)

Greg Shatan: (13:27) THe details can be dealt with in implementation (or "operationalization" as the Board would have it).

Avri Doria: (13:27) ( :

Cheryl LangdonOrr: (13:28) thanks sharon I assume then unless there is objection from the lixtbthe letter is approved with these additional edit

Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (13:28) I have to say this does sound worrying!

Greg Shatan: (13:28) What's the worry?

Greg Shatan: (13:30) The first paragraph is a summary, rather than a comment, in my view.

Greg Shatan: (13:30) I prefer to keep it.

Cheryl LangdonOrr: (13:31) just you @chuck

Greg Shatan: (13:31) Just so I can disagree with Chuck once a year.

Greg Shatan: (13:31) I've now met my quota.

Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:32) :)

Sharon Flanagan: (13:32) We will do that today

Avri Doria: (13:32) Greg, got to double check your reasonaing, anytime you find yourself disagreeing with Chuck.

Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (13:34) @ Greg re:worry - suggestion that IRP is not wholly fit for purpose - or is it a very specific applicability point? Sorry if I misunderstood.

Cheryl LangdonOrr: (13:34) good call... thanks everyone.... happy to miss a week :-) talk again soon then ... by for now

Avri Doria: (13:34) Mark, i think it is an applicabilty point.

Avri Doria: (13:34) easily fixed, relatively.

Jonathan Robinson: (13:34) @MArk. Agree with Avri. A very specific applicability point

Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (13:35) bye

Seun Ojedeji: (13:35) Thanks all

Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:35) Againmy apologies for taking so much floortime

Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (13:35) OK - reassured! bye

Seun Ojedeji: (13:35) bye

Allan MacGillivray: (13:35) Thanks all. Bye.

CWG on Stewardship Transition