[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #76 - 4 February 2016

Thu Feb 4 18:10:14 UTC 2016

Dear all, 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #76 on 4 February will be available
here: https://community.icann.org/x/nJBlAw

A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.

Kind regards,

Brenda

Action Items

*        Action (Trang): ICANN to share Viagenie's work with the SLE Team, and if requested,
schedule a call to provide any clarification 
and answer any questions.  SLE Team to report back to CWG following the call. 

*        Action (staff): set up a call ASAP for the CWG Chairs, DT-O,  Paul Kane, Allan
MacGillivray, and anyone else who has questions to 
discuss the budget work and progress. 

*        Action (Client Com): hold meeting to discuss process and costs related to Bylaws work

Notes

1. Opening Remarks 

*        Key objective: deal with CWG responses on Bylaws drafting 

*        Transition costs related to CWG and CCWG will be discussed under item #4

*        Agenda switch: Item #3 (IANA IPR) will move to item #2 since Greg is only available for the
first hour. 

2. IANA IPR 

(update from Greg Shatan)

*        Meeting with the CRISP and IETF groups, adopted the IETF principles as goal in development
of terms for the Trust. 

*        Comments from the cross-operational team due in a few days. There will be a draft shared
with the CWG afterward. 

*        Group has a publicly archived list:  <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/>
https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/. 

3. Implementation Update 

(update from Trang Nguyen)

*        Marc Blanchet will present his work on data parsing today

*        Presentations will be posted on Wiki implementation page:
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Implementation>
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Implementation

*        How does the CWG work with ICANN on elements such as the CSC Charter and Bylaws?
Implementation team is aware of the CWG response document, but 
has not had a chance to review it closely. May be something to address later in the call (under item
#5)

*        Are there any implications of the CCWG delay on the RZMA? Not necessarily for RZMA, but
there may be an effect on the incorporation of PTI. 

(presentation from Marc Blanchet on SLE Data Parsing)

*        The scope of project was to see if the 11 metrics requested by the SLE team could be
measured/applied to the RZMS/RT. 

*        Viagenie conducted random sampling of the tickets as part of analysis. Limited tickets to
Jan 1 2012 through Nov 30 2015 to avoid unstable tickets (RZMS 
was put into production in April 2011). 

*        One limitation to note: the current system does not distinguish between ccTLDs and gTLDs. 

*        The SLE team identified 5 categories that are not in the current system. For the study,
Viagenie used 2-3 groups resembling categories to provide better statistics. 

*        Was this work conducted in cooperation with the SLE Team? The team that worked on the study
is from Viagenie (contractors). 

*        Will a lot of coding be required to provide analysis on the metrics? Are some requests not
achievable? In some cases yes, and this is why ICANN has been 
working on code-changes for the RZMS so that data can be collected on the 11 metrics that are
requested. 

*        Concerns around providing the raw data and this may not be possible (confidential data).
Instead, ICANN brought in a contractor to conduct the analysis. 

*        Can the data be anonymized? If the data is anonymized, then it is not raw data. The request
was for raw data. 

Action (Trang): ICANN to share Viagenie's work with the SLE Team, and if requested, schedule a call
to provide any clarification and answer any questions.  SLE 
Team to report back to CWG following the call. 

4. CCWG-Accountability 

*        Chairs had coordination call yesterday and it is clear that the CCWG-Accountability is
working through tough issues and tight deadlines

*        Work in the past two weeks has focused on IRP process and the budget. The final wording is
still not available, but will be circulated to the CWG as 
documents become available. 

*        All CCWG documents are posted here:
<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report>
https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report

*        Paul Kane has some concerns. Perhaps we need a call to explain?

*        Board Finance Committee has expressed concerns about the costs of the transition departing
from the budgeted cost. Legal fees are a large part of the high costs

*        ICG intends to seek confirmation from CWG that the requirements have been met. This is
expected around the time that the CCWG report goes to Chartering 
Organizations. A speedy reply would be helpful. 

Action (staff): set up a call ASAP for the CWG Chairs, DT-O,  Paul Kane, Allan MacGillivray, and
anyone else who has questions to discuss the budget work and progress. 

5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG-Stewardship

*        Sidley produced a draft on 7 November. The CWG noted that there were many questions to be
answered and that the Bylaws many need to be shortened. 

*        DT-leads have populated a table with some responses, but there needs to be further work on
resolving the responses. 

*        ICANN legal could make a first draft of the Bylaws, to be reviewed by Sidley. The Client
Committee could discuss this further, especially with regard to recent cost 
information from Board. 

*        In July, the Client Committee received an estimate to produce a Bylaws Matrix (
<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000266.html>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000266.html). This includes the work produced on
7 November. The CWG does not have an estimate for the Bylaws drafting as a whole. 

*        Martin Boyle suggests that CWG should be careful about what is "locked down" in Bylaws. In
some cases, where change/evolution is envisioned, then it may be 
best to not include these elements in the Bylaws. 

*        The next iteration of the Bylaws needs to be smaller in size and make reference to external
documents. 

*        What does "TBD" mean? Staff had flagged these as items for further work in implementation
phase

Current Plan: 

*        Provide best possible answers in documents

*        To instruct Sidley to produce a slimmed down version based on responses

*        Before instructing Sidley, have a discussion with them about time and costs

*        Coordinate with ICANN implementation 

Next Steps: 

*        Review and update the documents

*        Discuss with Sidley

Action (Client Com): hold meeting to discuss process and costs related to Bylaws work

6. AOB 

Next meeting on 18 February

7. Closing Remarks 

Thanks all!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160204/4721efb2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160204/4721efb2/image003-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 378 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160204/4721efb2/image004-0001.png>
-------------- 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/20160204/4721efb2/smime-0001.p7s>