[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016

Tue Apr 12 20:47:59 UTC 2016

Grace

Another correction for the notes.

The point I was making in AoB was the current draft Bylaws do not (adequately)
address the difference between gTLDs (who obtain their authority from ICANN
under contract) and ccTLDs (the vast majority pre-date ICANN and have no formal
relationship with ICANN) and ccTLDs and gTLDs have very different Policy
development mechanism.

IMHO it is essential that any PTI (in the new Bylaws under consideration)
articulates and respects the differences between ccTLDs and gTLDs... as IANA 
has done since its inception.

The other point was on current inconsistencies which you correctly captured -
the example I gave was Page 80 of the Bylaws cites Section 16.3(a) - which does
not exist.... and there are many other such fundamental errors.

Best

Paul

Quoting Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>:

> Thank you for the correction Greg. My error for not re-reading the notes. 
> 
> -- 
> Grace Abuhamad
> Manager, Public Policy
> 
> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006
> 
> Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638
> 
> Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? 
> LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. 
> 
> From:  <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Date:  Monday, April 11, 2016 at 3:05 PM
> To:  Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
> Cc:  "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject:  Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws
> Review Meeting | 11 April 2016
> 
> The note on Number 9 is incorrect.  The reference should be to the NCPH
> (Non-Contracted Parties House) not to the NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder
> Group, which is 1/2 of the NCPH).
> 
> Please correct this to read: change to reflect confirmation of the question:
> CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCPH. Only restriction is that
> this not be from a gTLD registry.
> 
>  
> 
>  Gregory S. Shatan | Partner
> McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
> 
> 245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167
> T: 212-609-6873
> F: 212-416-7613
> gshatan @mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com  
> 
> BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK 
> EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA  | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC
>  
> 
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
> wrote:
> Dear all, 
> 
>  
> 
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting
> on 11 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/RieAAw
> 
>  
> 
> A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Brenda
> 
>  
> 
> Action Items
> 
> Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy
> about language in 18.4a.  
> 
> Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss
> and revert back to group with next steps.
> 
> Notes
> 
> 1. Review of CWG-Stewardship responses on Bylaws (lead by DT leads for each
> section)
> 
> Â·       Question 8: response approved with "direct customers"
> 
> Â·       Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC
> liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is 
> that this not be from a gTLD registry. 
> 
> Â·       Question 10: no change. 
> 
> Â·       Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in
> the Charter. It is not  for inclusion in Bylaws. 
> 
> Â·       Question 12: no change. 
> 
> Â·       Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original
> text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'. Or an 
> alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). 
> That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the 
> IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming
> functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large".  
> 
> Â·       Question 14: no change. 
> 
> Â·       Question 15: no change. 
> 
> Â·       Question 16: Suggest going back to original CWG proposal language
> ("reasonable consultation with SOs and ACs")
> 
> Â·       Question 17: clarification on the definition of performance. 
> 
> Â·       Question 18: no change
> 
> Â·       Question 19: no change
> 
> Â·       Question 20: Suggestion for "as many individuals be appointed as
> possible". Agreement no to specify any numbers. 
> 
> Â·       Question 21: no change
> 
> Â·       Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is
> support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship 
> proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the
> CCWG-Principles. 
> 
> Â·       Question 24: no change
> 
> Â·       Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach
> out to Avri and Matt to clarify. 
> 
> Â·       Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and
> focus on gTLDs. 
> 
> Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy
> about language in 18.4a.  
> 
> 2. AOB
> 
> Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting
> on Thursday.  The implementation update and other items 
> may be able to be provided via email. 
> 
> Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss
> and revert back to group with next steps. 
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> 
> 
> 
> 