Proposed Agenda 

Agenda for Meeting #50 (11h00 – 13h00 UTC)

1. Opening Remarks

2. Overall Timeline / Milestones

3. Plan for High Intensity Meetings

4. Level Set & Capture Journey to date

5. Public Comments

      a. Mechanics

      b. Areas of Agreement

      c. DT Updates / Responses to Public Comment

6. AOB

7. Closing

Notes

Overall Timeline / Milestones

• 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting
• 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting – review final proposal (sign-off?)
• 8 June - submission to SO/ACs
• 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting – Next steps, communication, other issues
• W/C 8 June – Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June?
• 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires

Audio only: Olivier Crepin-Leblond; Eduardo Diaz 

1. Opening Remarks 

2. Overall Timeline / Milestones (see above)

3. Plan for High Intensity Meetings

• • Keep objectives: provide substance in finalizating porposal and absorb the public comment input
  • Necessary level of detail needed and closure of key items
  • Focus chat conversation on topic at hand 
  • Key Sidley memos are 7 May and 13 May, available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
  • Review tool with color coded items

Plan for rest of meetings:

• • Meeting #51 (15h00 to 17h00 UTC) – Aim to address overarching structure and supporting accountability mechanisms
  • Meeting #52 (19h00 to 21h00 UTC) – Further work on Public Comments detail
  • Meeting #53 (07h00 to 09h00 UTC) – Scope of PTI
  • Meeting #54 (10h00 to 12h00 UTC) – PTI Board Composition
  • Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) – Remaining open issues including implementation  

4. Level Set & Capture Journey to date

• • Public Comment 1 – December 2014: Satisfaction with IANA; Retain IANA with ICANN; Legal advice on structure 
    required; Comments on both too much and too little detail
  • ICANN52 Singapore – February 2015: Entered with 4 structures, left with 7; Lack of operational specifics 
    criticized; No legal advice in place; Established new working methods
  • F2F Istanbul – 25-27 March 2015: Entered with 7 structures; Physical presence of and support from Sidley; Spirit 
    of compromise and recognition of need to make progress
  • April High Intensity: Integration and finalization priority 1 DTs; Sidley Punch List; Finalize key content of proposal for 2nd public comment

5. Public Comments

      a. Mechanics

Out for a week / no objections to mechanics; Some revisions to staff comments

      b. Areas of Agreement

CSC -- issue with IFRT reviewing CSC in its operational capacity

      c. DT Updates / Responses to Public Comment

• • DT-O has reviewed budget-related comments and will send to CWG shortly. 
  • Some implementation issues are not foreseen since they are ICG/CRISP/IETF considerations
  • Need to distinguish between CWG and ICG implementation 
  • DT-M working on list and will share with DT-C

6. AOB 

Comments that are addressed to the CCWG-Accountability 

Active work is ongoing to review the public comment. The group seeks to make available this draft so that comments. The first draft is available at https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg. 

Action: Staff to update Public Comment page

7. Closing

Action Items

Action: Staff to update Public Comment page

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #50 28 May.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #50 28 May.pdf

Recordings

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6gxw0wqhc2/

The audio MP3 link is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-28may15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (5/28/2015 05:38) Welcome to the CWG IANA Intensive Work Day 1, Session 1 on 28 May 2015.

  CLO: (05:50) hold my dial-out the head is literally crowning and Kristy is pushing

  Brenda Brewer: (05:51) Wonderful new!  Holding the dial-out!!

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (05:54) It sounds like a truly momentous morning

  CLO: (05:54) its a girl

  Grace Abuhamad: (05:54) CWG baby!

  Marika Konings: (05:54) Congratulations!!!

  Brenda Brewer: (05:55) Congrats!!!! 

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:55) How lovely!

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (05:57) How wonderful!

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:57) Morning/Afternoon/Evening All

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (05:57) @CLO Congrats to you and yours!

  Avri Doria: (05:58) ah, the start of 12 hours together.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (06:00) Hello all

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (06:01) Congrats @CLO

  Lise Fuhr: (06:01) @Avri yes looking forward to it :)

  Staffan Jonson: (06:01) Hi All

  Lise Fuhr: (06:01) @CLO congratulations

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:02) Congrats CLO

  Paul Szyndler: (06:03) :) Congrats @CLO!

  jorge cancio (GAC): (06:03) Hi all

  Brenden Kuerbis: (06:04) Hello all. Congrats CLO!

  Seun Ojedeji: (06:05) Hello everyone

  Lise Fuhr: (06:07) Sorry for the noise - there are ongoing construction in the building

  Avri Doria: (06:09) i object

  Avri Doria: (06:09) to closing a path of communications.

  Lise Fuhr: (06:10) @Avri it is not closing it but use it with care and thinking of the difficulty of following too many paths

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:10) The link to the documents ais here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee

  Avri Doria: (06:10) i do not see why this is a chair's decsion to make.

  Avri Doria: (06:12) always  blaming things on non english speakers, some of who read better than speak. in my expereince.

  jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (06:13) Read Only

  Avri Doria: (06:13) i give up.

  Lise Fuhr: (06:14) @Avri don't give up - we have noted your view and the chat is not closed

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:17) The link to the documents ais here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:19) thanks :)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:21) I think the OTI affilkiate model seems to have very broad acceptance now

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:21) *PTI

  Brenden Kuerbis: (06:23) Agree with Greg. 2 against PTI if I recall correctly, and a handful for more separation of PTI. The overwhelming majority support PTI.

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:25) You can see the meeting notes from the April high intensity here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896582

  Greg Shatan: (06:27) The concept Jonathan was encouraging is to use the chat in service of the oral discussion and not as an unrelated second stream.

  Avri Doria: (06:28) it only becomes a second stream when the chairs cut offf disussion prematuruely.  sometimes it take a while for the typed chat to wind down.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:29) At a minimum, when discussing a thread in the chat that is no longer the current live topic, it is helpful to address the person who the chat is directed to.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:30) There are time lags in ability to respond to comments and questions in the chat.

  Paul Szyndler: (06:30) As one of the "infamous 2", I note that we placed a caveat on our comments, acknowledging that "the stakeholder community may agree to the CWG's proposal regarding an affiliate separate legal entity". In other words, we are happy to engage with the majority position

  CLO: (06:35) here via AC only

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:36) In sum, composition issue with IFRT

  Avri Doria: (06:39) oops too late

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:40) we can come back to your question Avri.

  Avri Doria: (06:40) no need, i will wait for the next time around.

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:40) ok

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:43) This was a concern for the RySG/RrSG

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:43) NTIA Q&A: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:43) Question to you all: are we taking these statistics as exact science? for example, when there is opposition to one of the points proposed, what percentage of silent "agree with proposal" do we derive from those results? Commenters are more likely to write comments about what they disagree with than what they agree with?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:44) @OCL Sample size is small, I think these are just informative

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (06:45) Please can we have this presentation as a download?  Thanks...

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:45) understood Bernie. thanks. I just think there is more worth in a qualitative than quantitative analysis

  Keith ccNSO: (06:45) I'm not sure that using percentages are useful in this way. It might be better to have the actual numbers of responses were "for" or "against"

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:46) +1 Olivier

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (06:46) Will add this next time

  Greg Shatan: (06:47) If this is the "sample," what is the "population"?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (06:47) btw it is not a criticism, just a concern I have. You and other staff have done a great job

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:47) @Lise was speaking purely from a matamatical statistics perspective, the comments are qualitative not quantative

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (06:47) Johnathan stealing my thoughts

  Greg Shatan: (06:48) In other words, do we think that this is not indicative of the larger stakeholder population?

  Greg Shatan: (06:49) I do not think that, and I think that calling this a "sample" is not correct from the point of view of statistics.

  Alan Greenberg: (06:49) Re multi-year reserve. Not 100% that this is something that must be in our proposal. But should be responsibly considered.

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (06:50) Maybe worth stating both percentages and real numbers. Also worth stating what the 'silent' component is.... the latter result would be open to interpretation!

  Greg Shatan: (06:51) Neutral jurisdiction worked well for FIFA.  Until it didn't.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:52) @ Gary:  Bernie sent the presentation to the list a couple hours ago.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (06:52) It may be helpful for CWG to provide some justificiation for why U.S. jurisdiction is adequate. Perhaps this will ameliorate the concerns.

  Alan Greenberg: (06:53) Neutral = coe name for Switzerland

  Alan Greenberg: (06:53) coe is code name for code

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:53) or could be code for non-US jurisdiction

  Greg Shatan: (06:54) Home of cuckoo clocks, chocolates and secrets.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:54) @ Greg:  and of FIFA?

  Greg Shatan: (06:54) Indeed.

  Staffan Jonson: (06:55) However, I believe that e.g. CRISP comment should be read between the lines

  Mary Uduma: (06:56) @AtFF +1

  Mary Uduma: (06:57) @stffan +1

  Keith ccNSO: (06:57) Apologies for leaving early -  I have another meeting now

  Lise Fuhr: (06:57) Bye Keith

  Avri Doria: (07:01) many people have difficulty extrapolating an implementation from the fundamentsl.

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:02) Please mute your lines

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (07:02) will it be possible to identify in the slides who is behind the responses /statistics

  Greg Shatan: (07:03) +1 to Elise's request -  a scoresheet would be helpful.

  jorge cancio (GAC): (07:03) +1 Elise (we may identify submissions shortly e.g. by numbering them)

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (07:04) Chuck: I don't I received the Presentation... even checked my Spam filter! Bernie, please can this be sent to me again?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (07:04) it should be possible to do quite easy

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:04) Gary -- I'll post it to the Wiki now and post link

  Mary Uduma: (07:05) Is it possible to have a sense of percentage of silent responses?

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (07:05) Thanks Grace!

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (07:05) thank you guys!

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (07:05) a lot of work clearly went into this

  Seun Ojedeji: (07:05) thanks

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (07:05) Excellent presentation... well done!

  Staffan Jonson: (07:06) Excellent, Thanks

  CLO: (07:06) Yes very helpful presentation... Thanks Bernie

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (07:07) Welcome

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:07) +1 Chuck and I think we may need a public comment on our final proposal.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:08) Thanks Lise.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:09) Was adding my feelings to his fundamentals

  Avri Doria: (07:09) i think the SOAC that have to approve have the option of tailoring comments to their votes if they wish.

  Avri Doria: (07:10) i.e if the GNSO feels it needs a comment period before voting, it can call one.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:10) +1 Avri

  Avri Doria: (07:10) likewise with ALAC or anyo of the others.

  Avri Doria: (07:13) very hard to hear

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:14) Gary and all -- the review tool and the presentation are uploaded here: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:16) document is uploaded and unsynced

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:19) Q: Do that issues not need to be solved so that we can provide a timelines to ICG/NTIA

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:19) *implementation issues that is

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:24) My understanding of the ICG's plan is that they're not going to "throw out" anything, but send stuff back if they have an issue

  Mary Uduma: (07:25) True Andrew.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:26) Yup that was the distinction between the two that I think we need to look at, ones that affect our timeline to NTIA and ones that are more administrative

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:41) Is it normal procedure to give responses in that manner?

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:42) I would see the 'responses' as something internal, maybe just a generic statement from the chairs saying that we have recieved comments and will assess their input

  Marika Konings: (07:43) @ James - staff's experience is that commenters are interested to see how their comments have been dealt with and what impact these had on the report.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:44) I wouldnt support putting a draft response document to the public forum, if its draft its just that.

  Marika Konings: (07:44) it also is aligned with the concept of transparency and accountability.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:45) Agree with James

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:46) @ James:  There is not way that it can be posted as more than a draft before the June 4.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:47) Then IMO we should issue a more formal response letter, referring to the draft response document on the wiki or the list. Not release it as a standalone communication

  Avri Doria: (07:48) i think it should be done transparently, but not published in an official sense.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:48) +1 Avri

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:48) Transparent already because it's posted here for anyone to access: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg.

  Avri Doria: (07:48) snapshot can be be avaialble on the website, e.g.

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:48) So we point people to the Wiki page?

  Mary Uduma: (07:49) @ Grace +1

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:49) Like Alan said, we make it clear that it is not yet official and final.

  Avri Doria: (07:49) with lots of caveats about the partial nature of the document.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:49) James suggestion makes sense to me, a brief communication explaining the context and caveats

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:50) Would anyone like to draft the "disclaimer" for the document

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:50) ?

  Avri Doria: (07:50) and the indication that many repsonse have been contributed by the chairs & staff.  and while they are perfect in every way, they may not correspiod to the  consensus of the group.

  jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (07:50) Just put a link to the wikiwith an explanation in front of it?

  Avri Doria: (07:50) yes, Jaap

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:50) @avri yes, that should be clear

  Mary Uduma: (07:51) Yes Jaap

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:51) Chairs statement with a link to the draft on the wiki is perfectly transparent and shows that we are assessing the responses

  Avri Doria: (07:51) or written across every page.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:51) @ Jonathan:  Note that the DTs may need most of next week to finish their public comment responses.

  Avri Doria: (07:52) good idea Holly

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:52) Good suggestio Holly

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:52) Agree with Chuck's commenton DT

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:52) Great suggestion

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:52) @ Holly:  The response column is what is at issue.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:53) Agree with Greg on response column.

  Avri Doria: (07:54) that generic thanks yoou might be inappropriate before the discussion has been held.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:55) To Greg's point. E.g., a debatable comment "PTI is an entity for the operation of IANA naming services only."

  Greg Shatan: (07:55) The generic thank you is somewhat gratuitous.  They really don't add anything and can be deleted.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:55) @ Avri:  Disagree.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:55) That was my reaction Avri

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (07:55) Some truth in Avri's grumpy self!

  Greg Shatan: (07:55) "Your call is very important to us."

  Greg Shatan: (07:56) The assignments are more important, since they show our work.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:56) Regardless of whether we have finsished reviewing the comments or not, we are still thankful for the input.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:56) "We have begun to work on responses, our first draft is available at XXXX"

  Mary Uduma: (07:57) Thanks  and bye

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (07:57) This has been an excellent kick-off to our intensive

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:57) ok talk soon then

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:57) Thanks all.

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:57) bye

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:57) thanks all

  Lise Fuhr: (07:57) Thank you all - talk to you soon

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (07:57) bye all

  jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (07:57) Thank you all, later

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:57) bye

  Brenden Kuerbis: (07:58) bye all

  Staffan Jonson: (07:58) Thank You all Staff support excellent as always!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:58) see you all later