[client com] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes Meeting #40 at 14:00 UTC

Tue Apr 14 22:04:54 UTC 2015

Edited 'punch list' from the meeting is attached. Notes are below.

Best, 
Grace

From:  Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Date:  Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 5:51 PM
To:  "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject:  [CWG-Stewardship] Notes Meeting #40 at 14:00 UTC

CWG IANA Meeting #40 at 14:00 UTC

Agenda: 

1.     High Level Recap on Structural

2.     Review of Punch List (Chronological / Alphabetical)

3.     Instructions to Sidley?

4.     ³Instructions² to the CCWG (Optional)

5.     Way Forward 

Notes: 

Plan for this call is to go through the punch list from start to finish to
assist Sidley. Also will review work for the CCWG.

Request to do a side-by-side comparison of the two variants. Sharon kindly
provided one via Client list. This was provided to the CWG list as well.

Periodic Review Function has been renamed IANA Review Function.

We are not settled on the insider Board. We could live with it providing
sufficient accountability mechanisms

The Board could be internal and independent

We have to define the function/role and then see what is the composition of
the PTI Board. 

2. Review of Punch List (Chronological / Alphabetical)

(Edits in Word document on screen share)

Can the group compromise on legal separation? Yes, at this stage.

3. Instructions to Sidley?

·  Filled out punch list
·  DT-C (CSC)  Adequacy of provision for Conflicts of Interest & Governance
·  Conditional Proposal Wording  Implied ³Contract with the CCWG²
4. Instructions for CCWG?

€ ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost
allocation in relation to the IANA functions)

Response: The CWG supports the idea of budget veto tool, and the CWG expects
the CCWG to deliver on this ability for the community to veto the budget.
Furthermore, with regards to the details to be provided in relation to the
IANA budget, the CWG is expected to recommend as part of its transition plan
that:

1. The IANA Function¹s comprehensive costs should be transparent for any
future state of the IANA Function.

2. Future FY ICANN Operating Plans & Budgets, and if possible even the FY16
ICANN Operating Plan & Budget, include at a minimum itemization of all IANA
operations costs in the FY ICANN Operating Plan & Budget to the project
level and below as needed.

€ Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence
vote option)  

Response: As part of the structure that the CWG is currently considering
(Internal accountability hybrid model: legal separation variant), the CWG
will be relying on the community empowerment and accountability mechanisms
that the CCWG is considering such as the ability to review of ICANN Board
decisions on the IANA periodic review performance (PRF); approve or reject
board decisions on PRF as well as the related creation of a stakeholder
community / member group to trigger these kinds of abilities. As such the
CWG wants to emphasize again the interlinkage and interdependence between
the two groups and the need to continue close co-operation and regular
information sharing.

€ Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental
bylaw' mechanism)

Response: The CWG is expected to recommend that a periodic review of the
IANA functions is scheduled to take place no later than every 5 years and
would operate in a manner analogous to an AOC review. As the CWG understands
that the CCWG is working on incorporating other periodic reviews as mandated
by the AoC, the CWG would like to know whether an IANA Periodic Review could
be incorporated as part of those efforts. Further details on the mechanics
of such a review are available and can be shared should the CCWG confirm
that this is indeed something that can be incorporated as part of the CCWG¹s
efforts. 

€ Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues)

Response: The CWG recommends that the CCWG should be mindful of the
recommendations of the CWG in relation to an appeals mechanism for ccTLDs
and the survey results that led to this recommendation which notes that
ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding
re/delegation at a later date (post-transition). As such, any appeal
mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover ccTLD delegation /
re-delegation issues as these are expected to be developed by the ccTLD
community through the appropriate processes. However, the CWG does want to
emphasize the importance and need for an appeal mechanism to cover any other
issues that may involve IANA and notes that this is option is expected to be
specifically called out as one of the possible escalation mechanisms  in the
draft transition proposal.

5. Way Forward 

Design Teams will complete their work by end of day Wednesday so that the
work can be discussed on the CWG call on Thursday at 17:00 UTC.

Template for public comment response.

One of the Chairs will facilitate the DT negotiation call on Wednesday.
Sidley should join.

Action (Chairs): send instructions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150414/585375f4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Punch List - updated 14 April 2015.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 37875 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150414/585375f4/PunchList-updated14April2015-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150414/585375f4/smime-0002.p7s>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150414/585375f4/ATT00001-0001.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150414/585375f4/smime-0003.p7s>