Page History

...

Proposed Agenda: 

1. Welcome and Roll Call

2. Review of Variables Document 

3. Review of Framework Document 

4. Live-Editing of Pros and Cons Document

5. Thoughts on this sub-group on how best to use time in Frankfurt

6. Assignments for fleshing out parts of Framework Document 

7. AOB

Notes & Action Items: 

• Strawman is first draft - not a final list of proposals but attempt to capture ideas and proposals circulated to the list so far. If there are any proposals and/or elements missing, these should be pointed out by the sub-group and can be updated as such.
• Need to review RFP2B document at some point to indicate how elements have been replaced as one of the requirements of the RFP.
• Content of matrix is identical to individual strawman proposals that were circulated (to facilitate comparison)

Strawman 1 Questions / Comments

• Although focus is on naming functions, should other clients from IANA also be considered when working out these proposals? - Each of the other two communities already have a review body, however, no external body to ICANN currently for naming community. Question is probably whether the oversight body is naming only or should/could also incorporate other communities.
• Security / stability aspects may need to be expanded - e.g. responding to incidents, review of security / stability issues
• Would this proposal result in changing to ICANN Bylaws? Probably not, but may need further consideration.
• Why is development of governing documents limited to group of registries and not a multistakeholder approach? This alternative is foreseen in proposal 2 and 3 and as such is also on the table for consideration.
• Composition of 2 and 3 are more aligned with views of At-Large
• Can different straw men proposals be mixed and matched? Yes, that is the intent. Not intended to be siloed proposals. Same structure was done with exactly the mixing and matching in mind.
• How is enhanced separability taken into account under strawman 1? Self-sufficiency within ICANN structure is considered here so it could be taken out if needed (e.g. no shared personnel, no shared IT resources, no shared support resources). No untangling needed should IANA division need to be taken out. How would this work in practice (taking IANA function out of ICANN as a mechanism for non-performance) - if performance is bad, taking IANA function out of ICANN may not be the solution if you would take the whole division, including staff out of it as well. Straw man 1 only foresees this option if the breach is as a result of ICANN action / role, not performance f IANA itself - those would be solved through review and remedial action (or potentially RFP for a new operator).

Strawman 2 Questions / Comments

Features of number 2 may result in a self-sustaining model, more separable from ICANN than 1, but duplication may add to cost (what would be barred resources). Consider difference between a separate division and completely separate entity.

Strawman 3 Questions / Comments

• Funding may be issue, different arrangements ccTLD and gTLD, stability ccTLD funding not as ensured as gTLD funding. Splitting up gTLd funding in portions may be possible
• Funding: difficulty agreement across registries.
• If funded by ICANN separability will be issue
• Participation of GAC: Example of Canadian government officials, not in position to participate in decision-making position in non-governmental organizational due to liability issues. GAC representatives requested to check with their own legal services if similar position as Canada.
• Question: Funding through charging fee for services?

Overall comments

• Re oversight overall body: should no oversight body as model be considered?  Answer, not considered, unless in the context of organizational separation.
• Oversight functions can be realized in different way then creating external body, for example review every x years, with potential of separation, which assumes separability of IANA Function
• IANA Functions Contract needs to be replaced, in the elements continued in it. Whether this is done though external body or not is another question
• With regard to oversight Function, need for operational checks + need for oversight body/function to review of contract/review overall terms.
• A non incorporated oversight body -> risk of personal liability
• Alternative ideas, please add to matrix for further discussion. Discussion on merits of proposals and not on in or out of scope, to choose from ideas.
• NTIA function re delegation and delegation to be replaced by? (oversight body, is there a need/ serves a purpose) Maybe check with NTIA/IANA staff whether check has been useful?
• Where does oversight body need to incorporated? Some countries provide exemption to applicability of national law. However going into intricacies of comparing national laws way beyond scope of WG. Immunity is concept that may affect accountability adversely
• gTLDs have a contract with ICANN under California law, whether this has an impact discussion unclear.
• Immunity:  two=edged swords protects against Frivolous accountability <-> accountability

Next point of discussion:

• Composition of oversight body/
• Suggestion to determine what is meant by oversight, to decide whether one or more entities. See also different proposals
• Use headings in Matrix in subject line in emails on the list to channel discussion.
• Use Google docs for comments, Pro's and Con's to be included in Google docs repository to make suggestions.

MATRIX HAS BEEN SEND TO LIST AND HAS BEEN UPLOADED ON WIKI.

Meeting Adjourned at 15: 34 IUTC

Transcript

The transcript is available here: 

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: 

...