Proposed Agenda

1. Opening Remarks

2. Public Comment

    a. Draft format of review template (attached)

    b. FAQ (to follow up on this Action item: develop FAQ to complement information provided in the public comment forum)

    c. Feedback or issues from CWG

3. Punch List Updates

4. Brief update Cleint Committee

5. AOB

    a. CWG to send outreach to Bart for Section VI

6. Closing Remarks

Notes

Notes and Agenda - CWG - Stewardship Meeting - 12 May 2015

1. Opening Remarks

No Participants on the audio

- Add new item update client committee

- Request to extend PC: Given timetable and underlying principle of getting proposal to community by BA. 

- New timetable under development with Sidley

- Intense working days 28 and 29 May 2015

- Recent letter DOC by NTIA to ICG, talking about planning , timing and potential impact on end date of 
current contract.  Intention to have  a call 

Checking action previous calls

- Go back to ICANN Finance on costing models. Note written by co-chair

- Various Sidley documents, to inform CWG.

- Request Sidley to develop first terms sheet for contract PTI to encapsulate SLE

Comment/update DT A, will receive current work flow. from ICANN and IANA

- Sidley requested to provide stress testing on PTI Board in different configuration and other element

- co-chairs reached out to ICANN legal on punch list item 3 and 4 ( completed)

2. Public Comment

    a. Draft format of review template (attached)

Comments on Public comment tool: no comments

Start review comments now or after closure PC ?

Start with recording the input from PC right now.

Given dynamic document who controls it?

As it is circulated regularly, staff to maintain document.

Need for a reasonable process, to organise comment. 

Suggestion staff to prepare an initial response, CWG to reject, update, staff response 

ACTION: co-chair provide method on how to handle input from group on initial stff responses

    b. FAQ (to follow up on this Action item: develop FAQ to complement information provided in the public comment forum)

FAQ are prepared on basis of Sidley Austin document. 

Intention is to add responses to FAQ, moving forward. 

Next branch of questions to be included in FAQ is responses to question raised during the webinar.

ACTION: Share additions to FAQ  (responses from Webinar) with group ASAP, goal is to inform Public comment as much as possible

    c. Feedback or issues from CWG

PK: How to respond to those who feel proposal is not complete? and await responding to full proposal?

View of co-chairs is that 2nd proposal is sufficient complete, to provide meaningful comment. Based on response and ongoing work, 
proposal will be complete by BA meeting for chartering organisations to decide on proposal. 

Related item: CCWG  thinks requirements CWG will be reflected in CCWG proposal.

Proposal will only be complete with CCWG Accountability mechanisms in place

ACTION:  Capture points on completeness of proposal to inform community 

Comment: How will people not associated with chartering org provide their input during the 

Action: co-chairs work with group, to work on mechanism to allow those groups entities not part of chartering organisations to provide input on final proposal 

ACTION: Include timetable in meeting 13 May

3. Punch List Updates

Item 1- 5

Sidley Scenario testing  related to April 16 memo.

What is more resilient model in case of bankruptcy

Item 6-10 ( DT N). Is this group meeting?

Working through Google docs, inclination is not to have a call

ACTION: Ongoing work though shared document

Item 11-16 ( DT C): 

Action DT C :Capture points and share on list to strike items from Punch list as done

Item 17-19

Status: dealt be by heads of terms by Sidley. 

ACTION Client Committee: Update by Thursday through client committee on terms sheet

ACTION: DTA to provide feed-back on first terms sheet on SLE

Escalation Mechanism (item 21-23) DTM/DT C

DT M Meeting on 13 May. 

DT C made some d=suggestions-> to be shared with DT M

If needed co-chair available to asssit in DT C /DT M meeting

Item 24-29 Punch list (Avri)

Responses to punch list started, fundamental questions are still pending, such if IFR is going to recommend, then wh is going to separate? 

Discussion needed to go through triggers

Other items are covered

Comment/Question: separability what does it mean: are we talking baout separating the operations or stewardship?

Response: separability has NOT to do with stewardship, but with Function Operator. As a result different possibilities. 

Significant work ongoing: understanding it is a work of the whole group. 

Fundamental questions to be scheduled at one point. 

Action: Detailed session on fundamental questions re separability to be scheduled for Thursday 14 or Tuesday 19 May.

4. Brief update client committee

On ongoing forward basis in full of time and resources, especially at end of public comment period.

Outstanding deliverables: provide update Thursday 

(1) stress tests for insider vs. outsider board; 

(2) memo on public benefit vs. LLC; and 

(3) term sheet on the ICANN/PTI contract/SOW

Need to understand scope of work and implied cost, in context of resources used by CWG

5. AOB

    a. CWG to send outreach to Bart for Section VI

What have groups done as part of outreach to their own community.

ACTION member groups: provide brief overview

OFAC licencing is checked, Statement in proposal drafted by ICANN legal.

Sidley is doing term sheets

6. Closing Remarks

Next call 14 May 2015

Action Items

-ACTION Staff: Update Punch list with results from call

-ACTION: Detailed session on fundamental questions to be scheduled for Thursday 14 or Tuesday 19 May.

- ACTION co-chair how to handle input from group on initial staff responses

- ACTION: Share additions to FAQ  (responses on questions Webinar) with group ASAP, goal is to inform Public comment as much as possible

- ACTION:  Capture points on completeness of proposal to inform community 

- ACTION: co-chairs work with group, to work on mechanism to allow those groups entities not part of chartering organisations to provide input on final proposal 

- ACTION: Staff Capture points on completeness on punch list (6 May version)

- ACTION: Detailed session on fundamental questions re separability to be scheduled for Thursday 14 or Tuesday 19 May.

- ACTION: Include timetable for discussion in agenda 14 May meeting

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #46 12 May.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #46 12 May.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6hnejvhmu4/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-12may15-en.mp3

Documents Presented

CWG - Public comment review tool - 7 May 2015.doc

CWG - Public comment review tool - 7 May 2015.pdf

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (5/12/2015 11:37) Good Day all!  Welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #46 on 12 May 2015.

  Bart Boswinkel: (11:51) Hi All

  Paul Kane: (11:51) Hi Bart - thanks for the heads-up

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:56) hi all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (11:56) hello all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:56) hi

  Greg Shatan: (11:58) Solar flares?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:59) certainly was noisy

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (11:59) ¡Hola a todos!

  Avri Doria: (12:00) unfortunately i can only be here the first 30 and the last 30, i stupidly scheduled a meeting i have to chair for the middle hour.  and i could not change it.

  Greg Shatan: (12:01) We are indeed the CWG.

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (12:01) Thanks greg :)

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:02) @Avri. Will be aware of that. Try to come to you in first 30 in case we do not run until last 30

  Greg Shatan: (12:03) Now that everybody's doing it....

  Greg Shatan: (12:03) :-)

  Alan Greenberg: (12:03) VERY SPOOKY: I was connect to the call and THEN had the operator come on and ask for my passcode and name.

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:03) @Bart. Please confirm who is staff support on the call. No Grace and no Marika?

  Staffan Jonson: (12:03) Hi all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (12:04) obviously we have been at this too long

  Alan Greenberg: (12:04) Hand was a mistake - trying to mute when I suddenly was connected on my speakerphone.

  Greg Shatan: (12:04) That's my explanation, too.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:06) @ Alan:  You provided a good opportunity for some fun.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:08) It is the first time I've heard it, not saying it's not the first time it's been stated.

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:08) Hello everyone

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:09) some of us at the WSIS Forum that week

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:14) @Paul, is it the intention that you will reach agreement with IANA on the SLEs you have developed and then that would be submitted as part of the proposal?

  Paul Kane: (12:14) Yes.  The SLE _must_ be part of the proposal

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:15) @Paul, agreed, just wanted to confirm that the SLEs will be agreed with IANA.

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:15) If i get it right the phrase "current SLE" and not "new SLE" is the reason for discussing with IANA....i hope i got that correctly

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:17) +1 @Paul for SLE being part of the contract

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:17) yes keen to see that document from Sydley re their scenario testing

  Nathalie Coupet: (12:19) Could we have a look at the stress tests? They are crucial.

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (12:20) i have just provided some inputs to avri's doc, though they may not yet be accounted for

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:23) thats very important Avri - this was asked also from different GAC members in our discussions,

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:24) @Avri were you referring to the trigger for seperation in terms of moving IANA to another operator?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:25) clarification on this fundamental question of who is triggering separation

  Brenda Brewer: (12:25) Avri, your line is not clear

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:25) loosing Avri

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:25) she may need to repeat what she just said allover...sorry ;-)

  Avri Doria: (12:27) it is the separation of the IFO not the stewardhsip

  Alan Greenberg: (12:28) that is what was decided I think - ie committee of the whole.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (12:28) @Avri: Thanks for the answer

  Avri Doria: (12:28) in any case we will not reach a conclusion.  the disagreement is fundamental

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:29) yup that is my recollection as well @alan

  Avri Doria: (12:29) i thought i had but will do so again.  i had send an email outlining it

  Avri Doria: (12:29) thanks.  dropping out now. sorry you could not hear me

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:30) thanks Avri

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (12:33) It will help to start now since the final draft is going to be ready for the end of MAy

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:34) Donna - agree

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (12:35) But the responses do not become public until BA I presume - if published as go along in interests of full transparency they will likely trigger dialogue. 

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:36) Its the CWG response part that is sensitive

  Staffan Jonson: (12:37) @Mark Carvell +1!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:38) agree with you there @chuck

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:40) The responses to public comments from the CWG could refer to FAQ answers.

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:45) perhaps it will be good for them to suggest what part they think are missing (suggesting what they hope it will be)

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (12:46) Can it be considered sufficiently complete if CCWG proposal is mid-way on process?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:47) It will be complete, but the GAC is very much asking about the rush we have,  - when we are so dependent on the CCWG

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:48) And if we dont get what we want from the CCWG work  - what will we do then, ...GAc members asking..

  Robert Guerra: (12:50) +1 to chuck's comment about other "contributions" regarding the proposal being possible.

  Robert Guerra: (12:50) opens up issue of extending time for "key non chartering orgs" to contribute

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (12:50) @Jonathan: can your three points just given be recorded as model answers for GAC please.

  Paul Kane: (12:50) May I suggest we submit a complete proposal for review by the complete community after BA - sorry, but I think it is important all members have chance to review the complete Report incl the Accountability piece.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:51) The ccs have regional organisations - is this an avenue that would be useful to ensure inclusion

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:52) This is probably a strange idea but could we use the Ombudsman to serve as a channel for non-affiliated input?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:53) The Ombudsman is an IANN role but it is relatively indendent?

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (12:53) Yes - the earlier question about sufficent completeness - sorry  to be one step behind

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:53) @chuck, I don't understand what role you see the Ombudsman playing.

  Greg Shatan: (12:53) Isn't the public comment period the channel for non-affiliated input?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:54) Ombudsman strictly as a channel of communication not a faciliator of solutions.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:54) @Greg, I would agree but it is to some extent an 'inner circle'

  Staffan Jonson: (12:54) Donna: yes we try to use the regional organizations for inclusion. varied success

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:54) @ Greg: what happens after the public comment period?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:55) Thanks Staffan. I guess what we need to ensure is that the outreach has been done. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

  Staffan Jonson: (12:55) Yes, true

  Greg Shatan: (12:55) @Chuck, the Chartering Organizations have their say.  Perpetual public comment is not workable.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:55) Those associated with a chartering SO/AC will have opportunity to comment after the public comment period ends;  others will not.

  Greg Shatan: (12:56) That has been our plan all along.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:56) I am not suggesting perpetual public comment.

  Greg Shatan: (12:57) The alternative is to set up a public mailing list for further unaffiliated public comment.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:58) The issue I think is whether unaffiliated stakeholders should be provided some way to provide input after the proposal is 'finalized'.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:59) A draft final proposal could be sent to all who contributed comments.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:00) @ Donna: I think that has some possibility.  Would we also allow them to respond?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:00) yes, within a specified timeframe.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:01) @ Donna:  Might work.

  Brenda Brewer: (13:01) DT-M meeting Wednesday

  Brenda Brewer: (13:01) tomorrow

  Brenda Brewer: (13:01) not at this time

  Greg Shatan: (13:02) Stephanie, count me in for whatever.

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (13:02) thanks greg

  Paul Kane: (13:06) I am happy/willing to work with Sidley on SoW

  Paul Kane: (13:06) ok

  Paul Kane: (13:06) sure

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:20) thanks Greg

  Greg Shatan: (13:21) To recap Sidley Open Items:  (1) stress tests for insider vs. outsider board; (2) memo on public benefit vs. LLC; and (3) term sheet on the ICANN/PTI contract/SOW

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:21) I think you could follow-up with the support staff for the various chatering organisations (re: outreach)

  Paul Kane: (13:22) FOIA?

  Nathalie Coupet: (13:22) What do the acronyms SLE and SoW stand for?

  Greg Shatan: (13:22) GNSO support staff has not been involved in outreach, which has taken place  at the SG level

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:22) Service level agreement (SLE)

  Robert Guerra: (13:22) FOIA or OFAC - which is the foreign licensing requirement

  Robert Guerra: (13:23) for sanctione dcountries

  Nathalie Coupet: (13:23) Thank

  Nathalie Coupet: (13:23) you

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:23) Statement of work (SoW) "not so sure about that one"

  Greg Shatan: (13:23) OFAC, not FOIA (which is Freedom of Information Act)

  Paul Kane: (13:23) Thanks

  Greg Shatan: (13:23) Correct, SoW = Statement of Work

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:23) Edit: Service level Expectation (SLE)

  Paul Kane: (13:23) and thanks for the US/UK transaltions

  Greg Shatan: (13:24) SLE = Service Level Expectations

  Greg Shatan: (13:25) SLA = Service Level Agreement, which will include SLEs as well as other related matters (e.g., downtime, credits, escalations, help)

  Greg Shatan: (13:25) generically speaking

  Nathalie Coupet: (13:25) Thank you, Greg

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:25) Thanks all.

  Lise Fuhr: (13:25) Thank you and bye

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

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:25) good call, thanks everyone... bye for now

  Staffan Jonson: (13:25) Than k You all

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (13:25) Thanks all

  Paul Kane: (13:25) thanks bye

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:25) bye :)

  Nathalie Coupet: (13:25) Thank you all

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (13:25) thanks

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:25) Thanks Jonathan - bye everyone

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:25) thanks and bye

  Greg Shatan: (13:26) Thank you all!  And thanks for the efficiency!

  Greg Shatan: (13:26) Bye

  Greg Shatan: (13:26) Paul -- hand up?

  Greg Shatan: (13:26) :-)