[CWG-Stewardship] Notes meeting #1 intensive work weekend

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Sat Jan 10 16:58:08 UTC 2015

Dear All,

Please find below the notes of meeting #1 of the intensive work weekend.

Best regards,


Notes 10/1 – Meeting :
Please note that the documents in relation to item 3 were circulated to the mailing list just prior to this meeting. They include the survey questions for each survey, the google survey results summary and an excel sheet analysing the results.

2. Welcome - setting the scene for the weekend session

  *   This is the first meeting of 4 meetings taking place this weekend. Co-chairs, co-ordinators and support staff are co-located to prepare efficiently for these meetings.
  *   Maybe not as far along as originally hoped when this meeting was planned, but still considered important to hold these meetings to make progress
  *   Need to focus on areas where the group can make real progress
  *   Proposed content for 4 meetings, but these may shift depending on the outcome of each meeting.
  *   May run a timer to ensure that all comments are focused and concise
  *    CWG may need to review timeline at the end of the weekend session to assess whether or not any changes will need to be made
  *   Focus call #1 on the outcome of the surveys - areas of convergence and divergence, followed by focusing on the details of those areas of convergence (call #2), possibly using AC polling tool. Develop further details possible focus of call #3 and link with CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, including possible conditional links could be focus of call #4.

3. Review the results of the survey

  *   Surveys represent a sentiment of the discussions to date. Analysis includes responses received by the deadline.
  *   Results generated were generated by Google view. Three documents for each survey: 1) survey questions, 2) survey summary (auto-generated), 3) survey analysis (excel sheet)

CSC_MRT Survey (document nr. 2 as circulated to the mailing list)

  *   %Agree includes strongly agree, agree, is acceptable, %disagree includes disagree, strongly disagree
  *   Strong Agreement (green on the spreadsheet) - Flag used to indicate that % Difference (% Agree - % Disagree) > 75%
  *   Agree - Flag used (yellow on the spreadsheet) - Flag used to indicate % Agree > 75%, but % Difference <75%
  *   53 responses were received

Contract Co - IAP Survey

  *   34 responses received by the deadline
  *   revised version of the excel sheet will be circulated to correct some errors

CSC - Green areas (areas of convergence)

  *   There should be a CSG to carry out the tasks as defined the CWG Draft Proposal
  *   The CSG membership should primarily consists of ccTLD and gTLD registry operators with related experts
  *   The CSC should have a continuous existence
  *   Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity
  *   Users of the IANA naming function should be able to address issues directly with the IANA functions operator rather than being required to go to the MRT
  *   The role of the CSC should be focused on service level commitments performance indicators and quality assurance

MRT - Green areas (areas of convergence)

  *   The MRT should not recreate another ICANN
  *   Adequate care should be taken to restrict the growth dynamics of the MRT
  *   There should be multistakeholder representation on the MRT
  *   Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity
  *   The term length of MRT members should be limited to two full contract cycles

Contract Co - Green areas (areas of convergence)

  *   Whether Contract Co should be incorporated or not, and subject or not to a particular jurisdiction's laws should be examined by a neutral, unaffiliated expert.
  *   Contract Co should be extremely light-weight and its purpose should be limited to holiding contracts for the names community
  *   The bylaws of contract co should narrowly and clearly limit its activities
  *   Circumstances for re-awarding the IANA Function Contract should be limited to issues of non-performance relating to the IANA function, such as a failure to execute against established SLAs or non-adherence to contract terms

Internal to ICANN option - Green areas (areas of convergence)

  *   Adequate accountability mechanisms in an ICANN Internal option should include the possibility of removing the IANA functions from ICANN
  *   An ICANN internal solution should include a mechanism where the IANA Functions can be removed from ICANN for cause related to the IANA Functions and contracted out to a third party

IAP - Green areas (areas of convergence)

  *   There should be a standard procedures for cathing IANA process errors before resorting to an appeals process
  *   Appeals should be managed differently, depending on whether the appeal involves a gTLD or a ccTLD
  *   Terms of reference for the IAP and details on the composition of the panel should be defined
  *   The appeals process should be binding on the IANA Functions Operator
  *   Standing to file appeals should be defined
  *   gTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegation decisions to which they are a party they believe are contrary to approved gTLD policy
  *   ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegation decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy

Accountability - Green areas (areas of convergence)

  *   Ideally the CWG would have begun its work following the adoption of recommendations by the CCWG
  *   Ideally the CCWG would have begun its work before or at the same time as the CWG-IANA so that the groups could work in parallel
  *   ICANN should formally link the CWG-IANA and CCWG processes to ensure that the work moving forward takes into account equities from both processes so that in the end the community, ICANN, and NTIA have two well informed and robust plans to ensure the Internet's continued growth and evolution.
  *   Enhanced accountability must be in place prior to the IANA Stewardship transition
  *   Following the publication of the CCWG draft recommendations, an assessment should be conducted by the CWG-IANA to determine whether the CCWG outcome provides a satisfactory appeals mechanism
  *   A placeholder should be included in the CWG-IANA proposal that is submitted to the ICG to allow for further evaluation and work as needed after the CCWG track 1 recommendations are finalized.

Green areas does not mean that work is 'complete' - further details are likely to be developed and agreed to.

5. Confirm agenda for meeting #2
Proposal to focus on first poll and areas of convergence (leave second poll results to tomorrow) - broad agreement to focus next meeting on CSC and MRT details

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150110/e1120b12/attachment.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list