[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #79 - 12 May 2016

Thu May 12 18:14:15 UTC 2016

Dear all, 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #79 on 12 May will be available here:
https://community.icann.org/x/UDyAAw

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

Kind regards,

Brenda

Action Items

*        Action item #1: CWG-Stewardship to review PTI Formation Document Review by Sidley and share
comments / feedback on the mailing list. 

*        Action item #2: Dedicate specific time on next client committee to discuss issue in
relation to where annexes detailing relationship with ccTLDs should 
be best captured (contract or Bylaws).

*        Action item #3: Staff to hold pen on populating draft responses based on CWG-Stewardship
and IOTF input. 

*        Action item #4: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review ICANN-PTI contract
once available

*        Action item #5: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review proposed principle
terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements

*        Action item #6 - CWG-Stewardship to review draft charter and communicate any proposed
changes to implementation staff. Input 
to be received by 17 May at the latest.

*        Action item #7 -  CWG-Stewardship Chairs to share draft charter and remind of function and
role of RZERC with other operational 
communities for their information. 

Notes

1. Opening remarks

*        IOTF and Client Committee have been meeting - their work needs to be brought back to the
CWG-Stewardship to make sure there is syncronisation

2. Implementation Update

*        See slides presented during the meeting

*        What is the plan & process between 21 May (end of comment period) and next step (Board
consideration)? Theresa will be sending out an email later 
today what occurs between 21 May and Board consideration on 27 May. Will summary of comments be
provided and will feedback from CWG-Stewardship 
be solicited? At minimum, comments that would require changes or updates, those would be
co-ordinated with the Bylaw co-ordination group. CWG-Stewardship is represented in that group and
the assumption is there would be reporting back from that co-ordination group.

*        What is the status of paper on secondment to better understand rationale as well as money
flow? Paper has not been shared yet - still addressing one 
issue with ICANN HR. As soon as that has been addressed it will be shared with the IOTF. Aim is to
circulate it together with the other PTI related documents 
that are in development.

*        IOTF is expected to confirm whether proposed implementation is conform the intent of the
recommendations. Needs to remain vigilant to ensure that 
implementation meets the intent of the recommendations.

*        Concerns were expressed in Marrakesh about what was being proposed - until we see those
documents, CWG-Stewardship will not know whether those concerns have been addressed. Needs to be
able to review and respond and able to deal with any concerns.

*        PTI needs to be self-sufficient - separability is part of the proposal. Need to know what
end-game is, in case of separation in case of secondment of employees. Discussed before - not a
given that staff would move with the function if the performance 
had been so bad that separation had become a reality. 

*        Primary question is whether staff will want to go to PTI if they are not seconded. 

*        Need to make sure to understand the motivation and perspective on secondment. What are the
terms and conditions of those secondments and how does 
that impact on the way that PTI was devised from basic day to day to eventual separation.

3. Legal Issues / Client Committee Update

PTI Formation Documents

*        See document circulated - Sidley has requested input from CWG-Stewardship on number of
occasions. 

*        Consider preparing a series of answers and work through these with the CWG-Stewardship.

*        #15 - Chair (Director) selected by ICANN - not a foregone conclusion that the chair would
be selected by ICANN. Chair/Officer is an unusual officer to 
see in corporate formations. Understood as chair to be selected from 5 Board members but would be
good to clarify. 

*        Limited remit exists with regards to ccTLDs. Perception that parent - child relationship
can be changed easily. Need better understanding why it is not 
prudent to capture related annexes C, 7 and 8 from CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal in the Bylaws. May
require special session of the client committee.

*        Consider whether there are any volunteers to develop draft responses to the Sidley comments
or whether to ask the IOTF. Leave it open to CWG-Stewardship to comment - staff to capture the
comments and progress responses through IOTF. 

Action item #1: CWG-Stewardship to review PTI Formation Document Review by Sidley and share comments
/ feedback on the mailing list. 

Action item #2: Dedicate specific time on next client committee to discuss issue in relation to
where annexes detailing relationship with ccTLDs should 
be best captured (contract or Bylaws).

Action item #3: Staff to hold pen on populating draft responses based on CWG-Stewardship and IOTF
input. 

ICANN-PTI Contract

*        In the pipeline, not received yet.

Action item #4: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review ICANN-PTI contract once
available

IANA IPR

*        See Proposed Principle Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements circulated by Greg

*        Proposal to send draft for review by to Sidley - other communities have also asked their
legal counsel to review. 

Action item #5: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review proposed principle terms of
IANA Intellectual Property Agreements

4. CSC Charter Reviews and RZERC

*        See slides - update on CSC work

*        RZERC - draft charter was circulated with resulted in substantial discussion on the list.
Key changes need to be identified, if any are to be made. Not 
clear what words in the draft charter are considered offensive and have been objected to on the
mailing list. CWG-Stewardship looked at NTIA Authorization role. Focus of discussion has been on
whether RZERC also covers operational changes from other operational 
communities. Not clear what needs to be changed as charter does seem to imply it is only focused on
naming related changes. Other communities appear 
to be fine with RZERC to not get involved in any changes that relate to changes associated to the
other communities. RZERC provides input does not have 
authority - authority lies with the ICANN Board. RZERC provides expert and technical input on
changes proposed or propose changes that are deemed 
appropriate. The contracts/MOUs with other other operational communities and ICANN have not yet been
written - perhaps this concern should be addressed 
therein if those operational communities so wish?

*        Does ICANN need this function for the work to be done by other operational communities?
Board would need external vetting of the proposed changes, whether 
it is from RZERC or something like RZERC.

*        Consider renaming RZERC to allow it to be more general than just rootzone?

*        Make sure RZERC is fit for purpose for naming related aspects, but make sure it is
inclusive so that other communities could join if they would want to. 

Action item #6 - CWG-Stewardship to review draft charter and communicate any proposed changes to
implementation staff. Input to be received 
by 17 May at the latest.

Action item #7 -  CWG-Stewardship Chairs to share draft charter and remind of function and role of
RZERC with other operational communities 
for their information. 

5. Project Cost Support Team (PCST) Update

*        CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship incurred significant costs as part of its work.
Board engaged in conversations with Chairs and SO/AC 
leadership which resulted in the formation of PCST. Primary job is to report and assist with the
controlling of costs. Preliminary 
report seen by chairs - not clear yet whether it is to be shared. Discussed with co-chairs of
CCWG-Accountability. Intend to provide 
feedback to the authors & Board Finance committee. Primary concern is that process appears to expect
a degree of control over costs by 
the co-chairs without clear mechanics for being able to do so. 

6. Closing Remarks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160512/d5e1d6ab/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/20160512/d5e1d6ab/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/20160512/d5e1d6ab/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/20160512/d5e1d6ab/smime-0001.p7s>