[CWG-Stewardship] Notes from Meeting #67

[Grace Abuhamad]

Dear all, 

The recordings, transcripts and other related material from the call will be
posted at: https://community.icann.org/x/PZlYAw.

Notes from the meeting are below for your review.

CWG-Stewardship meeting #67

-- Thursday 1 October at 11:00 UTC



Agenda: 

1. Opening Remarks

2. Implementation Schedule

3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses

4. Update from CCWG-Accountability

5. Update on legal work

6. AoB



Notes: 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr on audio only



1. Opening Remarks

2 calls per week right now, but may not be needed.



2. Implementation Schedule
* Chuck prepared a document for the group to review
* There is also an implementation list sent Jonathan to the CWG list (not
presented on screen in AC room)
* ICG would like this shared this week.
* This could be shared and then updated. View this as a 'work-in-progress'
ACTIONS: 
* Action(staff): read and review implementation document
* Action(CWG): read and review  implementation   document (24 hour window)
* Action(Jonathan): send implementation document to ICG at approx. 13:00 UTC
on Friday 2 Oct. Include communication that this document is work in
progress/ not final.
* Action:add an implementation action item to the inventory regarding RZM.
* Action:cross-check question 8 from the ICG against the implementation
list. 


3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses
* ICG sent two batches of questions which are presented in the document on
screen. CWG has already provided answers to questions.
* On RZM question #1: ICG misunderstood the NTIA/Versign proposal.
* On RZM question #2: we have a Standing Panel to approve substantial
changes. So the answer includes, community consultation, expert
consultation, and Board approval. Refer to paragraph 155 in the CWG Proposal
(1155 in the ICG). Alan Greenberg: Proposed reply to Question 2: Both
descriptions are correct but incomplete. The full answer is addressed in
paragraph ICG 1155 (CWG 155). A change in the responsibilities of the IANA
Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer is clearly a substantial
architectual and operational change, and is therefore subject to a review of
the standing review committee and ultimately ICANN Board approval.
Subsection 5 of paragraph 155/1155 requires consultation through an ICANN
Public Comment Process.
* On ccTLD questions #3, #4, #5: These were drafted by the ccTLD
members/participants. No comments or concerns. Thank you ccTLD
members/participants.
* On PTI question #6: complete. no comments
* On PTI question #7: Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" since
the CCWG-Accountability is currently working this out. Additional
clarfications listed in action item.
* On PTI question #8: no comments other than cross-checking with
implementation. 
* On PTI question #9: PTI Board is responsible, but there is also recourse
to the ICANN Board. Confirm with lawyers
* On questions #10, #11, #12 on scope: no comments
* On question #13: representative of IAB or appointed person will be
involved in process.


Summary of current status on ICG questions
* Further work needed on questions #1, #2, #7, #9, #13
* Provisionally closed questions: #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #10, #11, #12
ACTIONS
* Action(staff): update Question #1 text on RZM with latest sent to list (by
Alan)
* Action(staff): update question #2 per notes
* Action(staff): incorporate Christopher's input (and any other input
received) where appropriate
* Action(staff): Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" (perhaps by
capitalizing the word Mechanism to refer to structure and by making a direct
reference to the CCWG-Accountability). Add "in the event that there is
divergence between the Board and the Community on an IFR
decision/recommendation, the Community will be able to rely on other
mechanisms that are being developed by the CCWG."
* Action(staff): update question #9 to include recourse to ICANN Board.
* Action(Chairs): run updated answer to question #9 by the lawyers
* Action(staff): staff to draft response to #13


4. Update from CCWG-Accountability

2-Day LA F2F Meeting



5. Update on legal work
* Bylaws drafting -- no update this week
* Previous action on question #9 for ICG
* Billing -- lawyers are reluctant to have full detail of billing shared
publicly. They are ok with the Chairs or Client Committee having
confidential access to the fine billing. Can the CWG trust that the Client
Committee will review these bills on a confidential basis? Any concerns or
objections? None recorded.


6. AoB

Action(staff): resend meeting schedule




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151001/de84c589/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151001/de84c589/smime.p7s>