[CWG-Stewardship] Agenda for CWG Meeting (22 September 2016 @14:00 UTC)

[Jari Arkko]

> 3.       Key Issues (with Sidley)
> ·       IANA IPR
> 4.       Client Committee
> 5.       AOB
> 
> Please note in the item 3 for IANA IPR, we will need to ratify the definition of the Names Community as it currently stands in the instruction letter:
> 
> “This letter confirms the request of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”) for the benefit of those of its listed chartering organizations – the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (“SSAC”), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), the At Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) – that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a “Consenting SO/AC” and collectively, the “Names Community”) that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement.”

The IANA-IPR team met today to finalise the IPR agreements, ready to be signed. We think we’re done, with one question remaining during the call that we hope to confirm latest tomorrow in various meetings. I was asked to send a perspective of this issue to the list, as you may discuss it on your call.

But first, I wanted to convey that it is critical that we get to approve the contracts tomorrow Thursday in our respective meetings. The IETF Trust is meeting two hours after your call. It is very important that we do our part, complete the transition specifications and agreements and get everything lined up. I realise that this is not sufficient for everything in the transition to go forward, as we are dependent on the US government decisions. But, it is imperative that we do our part, and show them and the rest of the world that we’re ready, able and willing. Please approve the contracts in your meeting tomorrow, as we plan to do in the Trust meeting after you. Thanks.

But back to the one question. We had realised fairly late that the contracts need to specify when and how they become in effect. There was some debate about possibly just executing the contracts vs. linking them to the rest of the transition transaction. The folks arguing for the latter (like CWG folk) prevailed, so the plan is to sign the contracts now, but make them becoming in effect conditional on the transition going forward.

I’m by the way still optimistic about the transition actually happening this month. But obviously the future is uncertain, and there’s nothing we in ICANN or IETF can do about those uncertainties.

At the end of the call we had some discussion about the dates for the check-in clause. Jorge, who has been doing much of the draft and is our lawyer on the IETF side, took the dates from the IETF-ICANN SLA that has been signed but whose in effect date is similarly held back by the other transition decisions. That contract has been signed earlier in the summer, and had a 90 day period to January 1, 2017. This is a date at which the IETF and ICANN need to re-check about whether the SLA still appears suitable. And maybe there’s something that we know more at that time, should the transition drag on that long :-)

Anyway, on the call people argued that is a bad date due to holidays, and folks from the RIRs and the IETF found February 1 suitable for the IPR agreements. This would roughly align with the check-in date for the IETF-ICANN SLA, so folks on the IETF side can re-evaluate both around the same time in the event that circumstances change between now and then, but also give folks a little more time after the holidays.

On the call today the argument was raised that having a check-in date in February creates the wrong perception and that a date 1 year from now would be better. We don’t think there’s a perception issue, and if there were, we’d already have it because the IETF-ICANN SLA has a Jan 1 check-in date. I am a trustee of the IETF Trust, and I take my job very seriously. We are doing this to serve you all and we need to do what is best for the Internet. But we are also careful, and it seems to us that being prudent about checking every now and then where we are is important. And with ability of us, the communities, to decide at that time what’s best rather solely rely on an external entity’s assessment — in this case the USG. Hence the February 1 is something we’d like to hold on to and that we view as careful planning giving the amount of uncertainty over the NTIA contract.

Hope that everything in the contracts is now acceptable you. Be happy to answer any questions. I may be on the call tomorrow, at least partially although I have some other ongoing meeting as well at the same time.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160922/2ff1c4d1/signature.asc>