Page History
Attendees:
Members: Seun Ojedeji, Olivier Crepin-LeBlond, Fatima Cambronero, Eduardo Diaz, Lise Fuhr, Paul Kane, Staffan Jonson, Elise Lindeberg, Greg Shatan, Avri Doria, Wanawit Ahkuputra, Jonathan Robinson, Donna Austin, Robert Guerra, Jaap Akkerhuis
Participants: Alan Greenberg, Alissa Cooper, Andrew Sullivan, Allan MacGillivray, Aparna Sridhar, Bertrand de La Chapelle, Brenden Kuerbis, Bruce Tonkin, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chuck Gomes, John Poole, Konstantinos Komaitis, Maarten Simon, Mary Uduma, Mathieu Weill, Milton Mueller, Matthew Shears, Peter Van Roste, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Stephanie Duchesneau, Stephanie Perrin, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Staff: Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings, Theresa Swinehart, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Bernard Torcotte, Mary Wong
Apologies:
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
...
Agenda:
1. Opening Remarks
2. Briefing on SAC 69 Document
3. Client Committee on Legal Advice
4. CCWG-Accountability
a. Coordination
b. Response to 30 January Letter
5. Way Forward
a. Work Methods
b. Work Plan
6. Gap Analysis
7. Open Microphone – Opportunity for Observers to Engage in Working Meeting
8. Review of Action Items
9. AOB
Notes 11/2:
1. Opening Remarks
- This group has taken its work seriously and worked very hard (including holidays)
- Work to date: Draft Proposal; Public Comment; Discussion Document
- Discussed feedback to date, especially from ICANN52, and suggest key points for moving ahead:
- Continue to move ahead and to make good progress, and to be seen to make good progress
- A functional, implementable, and complete plan is needed
2. Briefing on SAC 69 Document
Presentation by Patrik Fältström & Russ Mundy
(Slides will be uploaded to meeting page on Wiki)
- In addition to SAC 69, please study SAC 67 and SAC 68
- If the CWG proposal does not match the SSAC recommendations, that does not mean that the SSAC would object to the proposal. The SAC documents are guides available to the CWG
- Fältström: Reading the document will make the CWG work easier
ACTION: All to review SAC 67, 68, 69
ACTION: Smaller group to review documents in detail and pull out key actions for the CWG
3. Client Committee on Legal Advice
Update by Greg Shatan
- Looking for core competency in the corporate governance area
- It's premature at the moment to discuss and particular law firm, but the list is being worked through
- Working with ICANN, but also independent of ICANN
- Coordinating closely with the CCWG-Accountability
Questions
- Sridhar: How has "the client" been defined?
- Ojedeji: Is there a list? Where to follow discussion? What is the timeline for the advice?
4. CCWG-Accountability
Presentation by Mathieu Weill & Thomas Rickert
(Slides will be uploaded to meeting page on Wiki)
- Call for more "working together" on behalf of the chairs as well as the full group (lots of overlap on participants of groups)
- The CCWG-A will address the requests in the letter exchange, including budget transparency
- The CCWG-A will also address delegation and redelegations except for where countries need to deal with them
- Independent Review of Board Actions: there will be a mechanism that we can rely on (both empowered community and independent review). Substantive decisions on the ccTLDs will not be addressed by the Board.
- No reply to letter needed by mail since this has been addressed in session
5. Way Forward
- Chairs suggest focusing on building the document, to envision what a finished product would look like
- Our group had divided its work into subgroups related to the ICG RFP, but it may be more efficient to work as whole group. Create task forces as needed (for example on SLAs, detail of CSC, possibly the IAP)
- Integrating the group and working as a committee of the whole may be more effective
- Cross referencing the IANAPLAN-WG and CRISP proposals
- This will serve purpose of developing incremental progress
- Legal advice is part of convergence on models
- All of the CWG's energy has been focused on too large a chunk of work, the idea of task forces is to tackle the work in smaller chunks
6. Gap Analysis
(Introduced under item 5 "Way Forward")
- Existing proposals, SAC 69, etc, will help determine the gaps
- We also did our own analysis of the IANA functions contract, so we can refer back to that as well
ACTION: All to review NTIA slides
7. Open Microphone
- Suggest to reach out to other communities (protocol parameters and numbers) to see if they can add to gap analysis
- Suggest that the group review the IANA department
ACTION: Develop and maintain a required reading list for the CWG
8. Review of Action Items
- Smaller group to review documents in detail and pull out key actions for the CWG, including SAC 67, 68, 69; existing proposals submitted to ICG, NTIA slides on root zone management
- Reach out to other communities (protocol parameters and numbers) to see if they can add to gap analysis
- Develop and maintain a required reading list for the CWG
- Use mailing list to develop list of task forces categories (requirements, then solutions): SLAs is one
- More transparency for Client Committee
9. AOB
Action Items
- Smaller group to review documents in detail and pull out key actions for the CWG, including SAC 67, 68, 69; existing proposals submitted to ICG, NTIA slides on root zone management
- Reach out to other communities (protocol parameters and numbers) to see if they can add to gap analysis
- Develop and maintain a required reading list for the CWG
- Use mailing list to develop list of task forces categories (requirements, then solutions): SLAs is one
- More transparency for Client Committee
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here:
The audio recording is available here:
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Marika Konings: (2/11/2015 17:14) Welcome everyone to the CWG-Stewardship Session meeting
Marika Konings: (17:15) We'll be getting startly shortly
Marika Konings: (17:15) Please note that comments/questions from observers (non-CWG members or participants) are reserved for agenda item 7.
Marika Konings: (17:17) If there are any CWG members or participants that are participating remotely and would like to raise a comment or question for any of the other agenda items, please feel free to post those in the chat preceded by 'COMMENT' or 'QUESTION' and I'll do my best to get them in the queue for you.
Oscar Mike: (17:56) QUESTION: Would the legal advice be coming from a firm which has expertise in US/California corporate governance law? Not sure whether it is within the scope of CWG Names, will the legal advice would also cater to issues regarding jurisdiction?
James Gannon: (17:58) Oscar: I believe that deep experience in corporate governance was one of the requirements for the firm. Greg can answer the second part
Marika Konings: (17:58) Hi Oscar - questions/comments are currently reserved for CWG members and participants. I can queue up your question for the open mic item under item 7 if you like.
Oscar Mike: (17:59) Sure
Seun Ojedeji: (18:07) @Greg thanks for the reponse, however i think it will be good to document properly the processes that will be followed in appointing the client. This is not just for the CWG but for the entire process
Seun Ojedeji: (18:10) For instance criteria used in selecting the legal client and the scope of engagement of the legal team with the client are 2 key aspects that needs proper documentation for future referencing when preparing the actual RFP response
Grace Abuhamad: (18:11) The letter is available o nthe Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+from+CCWG-Accountability+--+30+January
isoccameroon 2: (18:11) Thanks for sharing
Grace Abuhamad: (18:12) (We don't have the usual scroll control facilities in the Adobe Connect room for this meetings)
Keith Drazek: (18:12) I strongly support the CWG and CCWG working closely together to identify any areas of overlap and to ensure the respective solutions under development are actually in the right WG.
James Gannon: (18:15) +1 Keith, its important to remember both groups are working towards the same goal.
Keith Drazek: (18:15) There may be an opportunity to off-load certain aspects of the CWG work to the CCWG...if the CWG is focused on operational accountability of IANA to its customers, then the CCWG could address the bigger questions of organizational accountability of ICANN/IANA to the community.
Keith Drazek: (18:15) +1 James
Donna Austin, RySG: (18:16) I would envisage that the IAP could be picked up under the CCWG
Keith Drazek: (18:16) it's two tracks that must result in a single solution
Alan Greenberg: (18:17) @Keith. Definitely, we need to offload as ICANN Accountability needs arise.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (18:17) Glad to see this enhanced collaboration.
Keith Drazek: (18:18) +1 Alan and Olivier
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (18:18) @OCL +1
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (18:18) @OCL that term is trademarked ;-)
Keith Drazek: (18:19) I think if we're successful in focusing the CWG on the operational accountability of IANA and the CCWG on the broader accountability issues, we can actually accellerate the work and make significant progress in the coming weeks.
Donna Austin, RySG: (18:20) @Keith, which would be an excellent outcome.
Alan Greenberg: (18:20) I wonder how much earlier the ICANN budget must be ready to allow for community approval in the critical path?
isoccameroon 2: (18:21) +1 Keith Drazek
Paul Kane: (18:21) We CWG need to identify specific areas may (or may not) be useful to work with CCWG on .... I don't want the CWG to loose control of its core components
Alan Greenberg: (18:21) @Donna, prbably not only an excellant outcome, but a mandatory one if we are to meet timelines.
Sivasubramanian M - in room: (18:21) @ keith It would be a good idea to offload parts of CWG work to CCWG A or vice vesa, so that there is no duplication
Keith Drazek: (18:21) @PaulKane, completely agree.
Donna Austin, RySG: (18:21) @Alan, and more importantly, enjoy Christmas 2015
Alan Greenberg: (18:22) @Donna, perhap add to our list of strategic objectives
Keith Drazek: (18:22) Not a land grab, but perhaps a land swap that makes the work of both groups more efficient and to ensure there's no overlap, duplication and uncessary complexity.
Matthew Shears: (18:22) + 1 Paul Kane
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (18:23) I'd emphasise team work
Oscar Mike: (18:24) QUESTION: [OPEN MIC] Developing accountability mechanism/architecture would also depend on the nature of the legal entity/institution it is intended. How is CCWG planning to address this contingency?
Keith Drazek: (18:24) +1 Martin
Oscar Mike: (18:24) *intended for
Marika Konings: (18:24) Thanks, Oscar, I've noted your question.
Matthew Shears: (18:24) cross WG team work
Greg Shatan: (18:26) @Seun, are their particular concerns you have in requesting this documentation, or is this just a general comment regarding transparency?
Seun Ojedeji: (18:28) @Greg its for the later, and would add "accountability" to the transparency
Paul Kane: (18:29) I support the idea of Task force groups
James Gannon: (18:30) Johnathan/Marika on my behalf: Can we really move to that more granular sprint style approach when the higher level internal-vs-external debate has yet to be respolved or are we going to work on both concurrently?
Keith Drazek: (18:30) +1 Jonathan, I agree that a review of the numbering and protocol parameter proposals could help inform the development and possible structure of the naming community proposal.
Paul Kane: (18:30) May be the ccTLDs and GTlds can work together to forumate expected Service Levels from the IANA and report back to the rest of the group
Donna Austin, RySG: (18:30) @Paul, I think that's a good suggestion.
Keith Drazek: (18:30) +1 Paul, I think that would be very helpful.
James Gannon: (18:31) Thanks Marika
Oscar Mike: (18:32) COMMENT: CCWG should also try to include mechanism which ensures highest levels of transparency. Including strengthening already existing mechanisms like DIDP under ICANN structure
Andrew Sullivan: (18:32) Not for the mic, but I observe that the agile/sprint approach requires a clear definition of done for any work item
Marika Konings: (18:32) Thanks, Oscar, I will add your comment to the list for agenda item 7.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (18:32) I am in absolute agreement with Jonathan.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (18:32) @Oscar : that is within our radar at CCWG
Marika Konings: (18:33) @Oscar - can I take your comment of the list following Mathieu's response?
Oscar Mike: (18:33) Yes. Thanks Mathieu
Oscar Mike: (18:35) @Mathieu: Correct me if I am wrong, GAC suggested some language with respect to DIDP and confidential information through princples prepared by GAC for the IANA transition?
Greg Shatan: (18:36) Andrew, Good point and I think the idea is to bring the "done" work back to the group of the whole in short order.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (18:37) @Paul +1
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (18:37) @Oscar : I am not an expert in that so can't answer unfortunately. Avri Doria is the CCWG Past ATRT Participant so we would be able to research if need be
Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (18:38) The agile approach should bring roadblocks back to the group in short order as well
Oscar Mike: (18:38) Thanks Mathieu.
Matthew Shears: (18:38) + 1 Milton
Seun Ojedeji: (18:38) Agree with @Milton
Staffan Jonson: (18:40) Proposed revised work methods are most welcome
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (18:40) @Staffan +1
Matthew Shears: (18:41) No doubt that we need multiple tracks runoing in parallel but they need to be very well corrdinated to we don't have overlap or worse directions of work that are at odds
Paul Kane: (18:42) Matthew +1
Robert Guerra - SSAC: (18:44) BTW have we skipped the Gap Analysis section of the agenda. thought that was on the list - before - open mike?
Andrew Sullivan: (18:46) @Robert: the gap analysis part was mixed in with the other discussion
Robert Guerra - SSAC: (18:46) ah.ok. thanks
isoccameroon 2: (18:47) In the constitution of the CWG was care taken to include the physically challenged
Paul Kane: (18:47) I was very please not the be involved in the Legal Advise sub-group (as a non-lawer) :-). I am happy to be involved with two topics - the Service Level group and as the former e-IANA Chair a possible end-to-end automation task force
Oscar Mike: (18:47) Thanks Marika. Can Mathieu or Thomas answer my last question?
Grace Abuhamad: (18:48) @Paul -- can you send an email to the list to get a list of task forces going? We can allocate on next call/meeting
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (18:48) @Oscar : as I said, the CCWG can work on basis of requirements. I am rather confident this can be made independent of legal structures but I admit I cannot be certain
Paul Kane: (18:49) Grace - Sure if it is an adopted working method happy to
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (18:50) @ Paul: I think a very good approach is for registries, g's & c's, to work together to develop SLAs, etc. Thanks for volunteering. The RySG plans to participate in that as well.
Grace Abuhamad: (18:51) @Paul -- perhaps we can confirm next steps in the action items section of the agenda
Marika Konings: (18:51) if there are any other comments, questions from remote observers, please feel free to post them here in the chat preceded by 'COMMENT' or 'QUESTION' if you would like to have these read out as part of the meeting.
isocgambia: (18:51) QUESTION 1 FROM ISOC GAMBIA CHAPTER: If this organisation's main aim is to globalize internet accessibility, what are their action plans for places with poor internet facility or connection
Robert Guerra - SSAC: (18:52) good question. Believe its out of scope for this cwg...
Robert Guerra - SSAC: (18:53) i a question for the ccwg
Greg Shatan: (18:53) isocgambia, you may want to ask this in tomorrow's public forum
isoccameroon 2: (18:53) Good questions from ISOC Gambia
isocgambia: (18:53) QUESTION 2 FROM ISOC GAMBIA CHAPTER: What is ICANN all about, how many Africans are part of your executive? what are your main aims and objectives of establishing this association -- MAMUDOU BALDEH, THE GAMBIA
James Gannon: (18:55) +1 Greg: Great questions from ISOC but not in scope for this meeting unfortunatly
Marika Konings: (18:55) @Isocgambia - this session deals with the IANA Stewardship Transition. Your question seems to relate to the general role of ICANN, am I correct? You will be able to finid that information on our web-site at icann.org
isocgambia: (18:56) THANKYOU
James Gannon: (18:59) +1 Johnathan would like to see that
Greg Shatan: (19:01) The legal scoping document has been circulated on the groups email list, which is archived on the group's wiki page. In addition, we will have the legal scoping document posted to our wiki page at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351404
Greg Shatan: (19:01) To be more accurate, the archive is linked to from our wikipage.
Paul Kane: (19:01) Action item: List Task force categories
Paul Kane: (19:01) Thanks Grace