[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #61 -- 09 July 2015

Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer at icann.org
Thu Jul 9 18:32:47 UTC 2015 


Dear all, 

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 61 on 9 July 2015 will be available
here:   https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782830

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

Action Items

Action item: Client committee to scope the work concerning IPR based on CWG-Stewardship discussion
and will ask for an indication from Sidley on hours/ budget involved to undertake this work. Client
committee to instruct Sidley to talk to ICANN legal to obtain further insight and background to the
IPR issue (possibly with involvement of other members of the CWG) - also consider involving other
communities.

Action item: Client committee to ask Sidley to develop matrix to identify bylaw changes, identify
which ones they would suggest they would draft on CWG behalf, which ones are drafted by CCWG that
need to be signed off by CWG and which ones are being prepared by CCWG that have no direct
relationship to CWG's work. Future work on bylaw drafting does need to be co-ordinated with CCWG to
not introduce additional complexities. 

Action item: Circulate charter in view of reviewing possible scope / role of CWG in implementation
(charter may not be explicit but certain areas may allow 
for this kind of activity).  

Notes

Notes 9/7  - CWG-Stewardship meeting #61

 

1. Opening Remarks

*        Final proposal has been submitted to ICG, but some items to be covered off during this call

*        No feedback received yet from the ICG, apart from question in relation to IPR

2. Update from Client Committee

*        Client committee met briefly prior to this meeting, preceded by an informal meeting of the
members of the client committee yesterday

*        Ongoing concern with regard to prudent use of legal resources and manage cost effectively.
Chairs of CWG, CCWG, ICANN legal and finance met to discuss how to effectively manage resources and
costs. Proposal to include legal fees in the remit of the client committee, in conjunction with
ICANN staff. No questions or objections raised to this approach.

*        Main points discussed during today's meeting were: 1) IANA Trademark / IPR - request was
received from the ICG to provide an update with the chairs did confirming that CWG-Stewardship is
silent on what to do with IANA trademark. ICANN Board also provided input to ICG on this topic (see
<http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html>
http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html). CWG-Stewardship to
determine whether or not it should take a position on this issue. Two options - remain silent
(maintain status quo, and rely on commitment from from ICANN Board) or ask Sidley for expert input
to evaluate what the options are from the CWG-Stewardship's point of view. Other communities have
indicated their preference to move it to IETF trust - based on conversations with IANAPLAN and
CRISP, those groups have indicated that they are not planning to make any changes to their proposal,
unless CWG-Stewardship would come forward with input that would conflict with their proposed
approach. Should this be handled by Sidley or ICANN legal team, also taking into account desire to
be prudent with regards to costs? Would first need to confirm with other communities if they would
be comfortable with the ICANN legal team - if not, it would not make any sense to approach ICANN
legal (who might also engage external expertise to address this issue). Other communities have also
indicated willingness to share information concerning the legal advice that they have obtained.
Likely that ICANN Legal input would be similar to the response provided by the ICANN Board, which is
likely not acceptable by the other communities. However, if this input is provided by an independent
party, such as Sidley, it might be received differently. Need to distinguish between advice on
trademark law and insight into ICANN's position, where the former is what is likely needed as latter
is already known. ICG would likely move forward with proposal to move trademark to a trust (IETF)
unless the other communities indicate that this would not be acceptable. A non-decision is not
desirable - as such CWG should get expert advice to base its position on whether it s in agreement
with the current proposal or whether an alternative proposal is preferred. Sidley could be asked to
conduct a stress-test approach; what risks exists with each approach from a CWG-Stewardship
perspective. Evaluate these in view of ICANN's position and the proposal from the other communities
to determine what is optimal and/or acceptable. As a point of information, there are 3 trademarks
involved: (i) "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority," (ii) "IANA" and (iii) the IANA Logo, which
consists of IANA in stylized letters plus Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. 

Action item: Client committee to scope the work concerning IPR based on CWG-Stewardship discussion
and will ask for an indication from Sidley on hours/ budget involved to undertake this work. Client
committee to instruct Sidley to talk to ICANN legal to obtain further insight and background to the
IPR issue (possibly with involvement of other members of the CWG) - also consider involving other
communities.

*        2) How to deal with Bylaws? CCWG will be proposing changes to the bylaws - CWG will need to
determine whether these meet our requirements. Furthermore, there are ICANN Bylaw changes required
that follow from CWG-Stewardship recommendations (e.g. PTI), does it make sense to instruct Sidley
directly to work with the CWG-Stewardship on those ICANN bylaw changes that follow directly from the
CWG-Stewardship proposal? Sidley could develop a matrix of new ICANN bylaws / changes to the ICANN
bylaws required, identifying which bylaws are needed and who would be responsible for which. If
CWG-Stewardship would consider using ICANN legal, it would need to confirm whether that would create
cost savings or the work would be outsourced at a similar cost as Sidley. Consider asking Sidley to
scope out the work related to bylaws and identify which areas are covered / addressed by CCWG and
which ones may need to be addressed by CWG. Eventual bylaw drafting will need to involve ICANN
legal/ICANN's external counsel to be able to advice the Board as well as CWG-Stewardship external
counsel to provide input on whether proposed changes meet the intent of the CWG-Stewardship
proposal. Does ICG require bylaw changes prior to submission to NTIA - not necessarily, but
CWG-Stewardship is dependent on the proposal from the CCWG which will include bylaw details. Ensure
consistency with approach taken by CCWG with regards to bylaw drafting and not introduce additional
complexities.

Action item: Client committee to ask Sidley to develop matrix to identify bylaw changes, identify
which ones they would suggest they would draft on CWG behalf, which ones are drafted by CCWG that
need to be signed off by CWG and which ones are being prepared by CCWG that have no direct
relationship to CWG's work. Future work on bylaw drafting does need to be co-ordinated with CCWG to
not introduce additional complexities. 

3. Future work for CWG-Stewardship

*        CWG may need to respond to future queries of ICG

*        Monitor the work of the CCWG, including possible early warning if need be. Lise is planning
to attend CCWG F2F meetings in Paris to ensure ongoing co-ordination and co-operation. 

*        SLEs - work is ongoing. Sub-team is meeting later today - this group is tasked to draft
specifications which will then be submitted to full SLE-team. A project plan is expected to be
developed following agreement on specifications.  

4. Role of CWG-Stewardship in Implementation and Charter remit

*        At some point need to be clear what role, if any, the CWG would play in implementation. See
for example GNSO environment in which a chartering organization directs the creation of an
implementation review team.

Action item: Circulate charter in view of reviewing possible scope / role of CWG in implementation
(charter may not be explicit but certain areas may allow 
for this kind of activity).  

5. AOB 

*        Future meeting schedule: schedule placeholder meeting for every two weeks which then may be
cancelled with 48 hours notice if it is determined that the meeting is not needed. Continue with
rotating schedule on Thursdays (alternating between 11.00 and 17.00 UTC)

6. Closing Remarks

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150709/a522e27f/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/20150709/a522e27f/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/20150709/a522e27f/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list