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

[Jonathan Robinson]

Thank-you Jari

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net] 
Sent: 21 September 2016 23:54
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Agenda for CWG Meeting (22 September 2016
@14:00 UTC)


> 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