[CWG-Stewardship] RFP3B Notes, Transcript, Recording 23 Jan 14:00 UTC

Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer at icann.org
Fri Jan 23 20:07:52 UTC 2015

Hello all,


The notes, recordings and transcripts for the RFP3B call on 23 January at 14:00 UTC are available



Notes 23/01: 

1. Welcome

Roll call :  Audio only Eduardo Diaz, Lise Fuhr


2. Need for 'Discussion Document' for Singapore

*       Singapore meeting offers opportunity to engage with community;

*       Goal is to prepare discussion document for Singapore

*       At end of meeting decission what goes in as "internal draft proposal

*       BT: Assemble document of "what is current state of play" includes

*       interaction of CWG

*       Status of draft Interim proposal

*       Public comment and analysis

*       Key questions

*       Alternative proposal

First draft shared, starting point

To be completed before Singapore, basis for slide deck etc.


*       AM: send out mock-up to list

*       No comments 

3. Review of 'Discussion Document' draft based on auDA proposal

Paul Szyndler: Not able to respond to legal questions. It is presneted as potential solution.
Starting to from back to front. Starting wiht non-contentious elements

IAP: considered non-contentious

CSC: only standing committee, other elements only activated when required

Concept Guardian: is concept aligned with"trust" similar kind of function of MRT

ICANN would be declare itself trustee

Beneficiaries: customers of IANA

Implicit assumption: it is an internal to ICANN model, in lign with purpose of this sub-group.

Key element: agree, with IAP and CSC, Guardian similar to MRT

Suggestion to take questions:

*       What is apex/pinnacle point: trust?

*       Chat question: dos it this reflects the first "internal to ICANN" proposal that largely came
from ALAC - is this the case?


Focus on Auda proposal first

Alan Greenberg (AG)( ALaC): looking for minimal proposal. At this stage no ALAC position, but is
abasis for furhter discussion adn possible evolution


CLO: Evolve to RFP 3B proposal, need to be acceptable if now wedded to Contract Co, For those
Request and needs external legal advise, similar as for "Contract Co" proposal. Viable

basis for 3B proposal. Fast track this proposal, to evolve


AM: Auda or LAC proposal is short hand for developing "internal proposal"


Staffan Jonson: Optimistic about proposal, some issues, what  is impact of  declaration of trustee,
how does separation work?


AG: Interesting to understand to what extend Auda prop. is more acceptable then ALAC prop. 


AM: Goal is to understand this proposal


Greg Shatan: Notes Trust very specific area of law: NTIA claim to transfer to MS community. If
transfered to ICANN how does this relate to need to transfer to MS?

Guardian is only formed when needed: newly formed, or roster?


Donna Austin: IAP and CSC and Guardian are all similar to what has been discussed in RFP 3. If that
is the case, leave in RFP 3. and focus in RFP 3B on trust and relation involved? Suggestion
supported by fair number of attendants


AG: tends to agree with DA. Focus on understanding trustee and trust relation, but notes substantial
differnece based on starting concept


AM: starting from Frankfurt, still does not understand what goes into "trust", what would trust


PS: Agrees not to go into other elements at this stage and focus on core difference.


In developing proposal: what is core of IANA Function and what is transferred. ICANN could be in
position that it makes a unulateral statement of trust. This statement delineates what is in
"trust". Suggest to focus on model, i.e. separation of IANA Function. Broad concept to ensure role
of community vis-a vis Trustee/ICANN. Facilitate discussion on principle. Issues around particpation


AM: Issue to understand what goes into the "trust" How would mechanics work?


PS: NTIA would approve of unilateral declaration by ICANN of holding IAN Function in trust. ICANN
would not hold the IANA Function. The functions would be identified in the statement of "trust" and
then be bound to the community. statement could include or exclude anything community wants to. 


AM: notes Avri s remark on IETF trust


CLO: Individual experience determine view on model. Hence need for rigorous legal advise. Internal
solution through "trust" and "guardian" function, would trigger Review. There is a lot

in model that at arms-length Review etc, could be triggered.


AM: it is given the remit is to develop an internal solution and develop its mechanics


Grag Shatan: CLO refers to guardian as an entity, but not as a legal entity. What if ICANN goes
"rogue" and guardian is incorporated, how can Guardian take action? 

Trustee is not powered any decision, however role of trustee is to maintain "trust" , How does this
difference be overcome. 


PS: Starting point trustee is not empowered to make changes to trust. ICANN by making statement, it
can not empower itself . If ICANN goes "rogue' beneficiaries or guardians can move "trust" somewhere


AM: What would happen in mechanical sense if ICANN as "trustee" would not recognize decision?


PS. ICANN holds assets in trust, it would not empower them to take any decision on the asset.
various mechanisms to change trustee. Mechanism through 

escalation path described in paper. Key principle ICANN would not be empowered to do anything, and
hence would have no control.


DA: What does "trust" hold. Structural changes needed.  to clear delineate IANA Function, includes
budget , own legal advise, etc.


AG: what is it in the 'trust" similar question needs to be asked for " interim proposal". It is
unclear what will be confereed upon, what will be tranfered? This question 

needs to be asked for all proposals. CWG does not know what is transferred?


AM: in community not enough discussion about " Verisign  root zom=ne maintainer contract". 


Greg Shatan: Model may work if asset is bank account.. IANA function is not clearly defined asset.
Does this require internal separation to clearly delineate 'asset"?


CLO: Guardina would be same. Mechanistic aspects happens in same way as NTIA does it currently. All
models needs to be tested, and made robust.


Greg Shatan: USG many resources at hand. Guardian does not wield any sticks. 


CLO:  Model should be developed properly, with proper safeguards and safeguards


AG: All mechanisms rely on enforcement in court, contract and Contract Co. as well internal model.
Move forward with assumption, that all solutions need to be tested.


AM: unfortunately not legal advice before moving forward. 

Would PS in the position to elaborate on questions asked today. 


PS: Could provide some additional clarifications, but providing fully fleshed out proposal in short
term, that was worked in by CWG over last months will not work. 


CLO suggestion: how much of strawman has merit for legal advise? Opinion, sufficient basis for
further discussion and seeking legal advise. 


AM: Making sure that it can be socialized


Greg Shatan: How can ICANN be forced to hand over set of activities: fundamental issues, enhancing
accountability mechanisms.  Important in both

 proposals: ability to hold board accountability for its decision. 


AM: simpler ways to achieve what needs to be done. 


Question to DA: this option to propose or develop other 


DA: which structural changes would be required? For example build walls around IANA Function.. This
discussion has never been had in CWG. Find tangibles


AM: PS asked to elaborate more around this?There are simpler ways, around board resolutions and
Bylaw changes?


PS asked to provide elaboration


AM has own ideas, focused around Board resolution and Bylaw changes. Challenge is to write some
pages on internal pages.


CLO: Will we have white board in ADOBE, and matrix to compare the similarities and differences,
including the AM model.  

No problem with putting various options to community

AM: Runs over matrix as presented in room.


AG: Is this alternative to original Auda and ALAC proposal? The rationale for Auda, it allows for
delineation and easy separation to try appease those who strongly support separation.


PS: Key point Auda's initial proposal, suggested something like a "golden bylaw' informally received
feed-back that such a model would be problematic, hence the evolution to "trust model" . What is
needed is legal advise.


AM: measure of agreement to see what he can do, AM see what he can do to elaborate. preferably in

AM: need for two more meetings 

4. Summation and Next Steps

5. Timing of Next Meetings

AM: circulation of discussion paper early February

Next RFP 3B Meetings:

*	Tuesday 27 January 14.00 UTC
*	Thursday 29 January 21.00 UTC

6. AOB --None

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150123/c661ade5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150123/c661ade5/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150123/c661ade5/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list