Members:  Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Elise Lindeberg, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji   (12) 

Participants:  Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Sullivan, Chuck Gomes, Gary Hunt, Greg DiBiase, Keith Davidson, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Milton Mueller, Tracy Hackshaw, Wale Bakare, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben   (13)

Staff:  Alain Durand, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings, Yuko Green

Apologies:  

Agenda

1. Opening Remarks
2. Update on Implementation Schedule
3. ICG Questions 
4. Update from CCWG-Accountability
5. Update on legal work 
6. AOB 
7. Closing Remarks

Notes

Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect room. Seun is on audio only.

1. Opening Remarks

• Aim to keep the call to 1 hour, if possible
• CWG-Stewardship currently has meetings scheduled for twice a week with option to cancel if meeting is determined not to be necesary
• Will review at the end of the meeting to determine whether Thursday's call is needed

2. Update on Implementation Schedule

• Other communities have already responded to implementation inventory from ICG with clear indication of who is responsible for what
• Draft inventory has been circulated on the list - it is more detailed than what the group discussed on last call
• Comparison foreseen between this inventory and the one of ICG to ensure that our Implementation Inventory in the same format as those of the other two operational communities so that they are directly comparable. Chairs to share list as initial overview of implementation items - noting that other items may get added over tiime, followed by request to staff to format it in the same way as ICG inventory.
• ICG needs a consolidated list
• Call earlier today with SO/AC/SG/C Chairs as well as CWG/CCWG leadership to discuss current status
• ICANN staff has already commenced development of implementation plan

Action item: Chairs to send implementation action list to ICG, noting this is an initial draft with updated / formatted version to follow by Friday

Action item: Staff to format implementation action list so it is comparable to ICG format prior to Dublin

Action item: All to send any other items that need to be added the the implementation action items by Thursday at the latest

Action item: Chairs to share implementation action item list with ICANN staff working on implementation

3. ICG Questions 

• Deadline is 7 October
• Update version circulated earlier today which reflects proposed changes. 
• Responses 3-5 approved
• Response 9 has been updated to reflect input from Sidley and CWG-Stewardship discussion. Approved.
• Responses 10-12 approved
• Response 13 was updated to reflect small edit. Approved.
• Response 2 approved.
• Discussion on list concerning question 1: Proposed approach by Chuck:  1. I think that the first part of our response as copied here is fine:  “The Verisign/ICANN proposal is not a vehicle for amending or replacing the Cooperative Agreement. Instead, their proposal is about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transition, and not introduce any risk. The Verisign/ICANN proposal addresses only paragraph 1150, Section 1. Section 2 has not, to the CWG-Stewardship’s knowledge, been addressed.” 2.       The co-chairs should send a letter to the NTIA as soon as possible seeking clarification.  I attached some proposed elements of such a letter. 3. We should add to our response by noting that we have sent some questions to the NTIA. 4. We should discuss whether there are other actions that we should take pending responses from NTIA.
• Concerns expressed in public comments to ICG proposal if ICANN would be RZM as some feel strongly that role should be kept separately. CWG-Stewardship proposel does foresee public consultation / input should any changes be proposed.
• Consider asking written clarification from NTIA?
• Consider leaving first paragraph the same and replace second paragraph from 'addressed' with reference to statement from Larry from meeting earlier today? 'an arrangement must be in place. We understand that in a separate and parallel process the following is occuring...'
• Should no agreement be reached on question 1, the other responses could already be submitted to the ICG noting that work is still ongoing on question 1.

Action item: Staff to update response to question 1 as discussed - CWG-Stewardship to review.

• Larry Stricklyn confirmed on call earlier today that what is in CWG-Stewardship proposal concerning RZM is sufficient. ICANN Staff confirmed it is working on minimal changes in relation to the transition and future changes would be subject to community input.
• Question 7 - why were changes made to original response? As a result of discussions during last meeting. Mandatory does not necessarily match what is currently in the proposal. Referencing CCWG mechanisms may not be helpful for ICG at this stage. Can response be more firm that IFR/Special IFR recommendations are expected to be followed? Introduce a sentence in between: 'the sense of the CWG-Stewardship is that there is the expectation that such recommendations would be implemented'.

Action item: Staff to update response to Q7 as discussed. 

• Questions emerged from public comment, not necessarily the ICG.

4. Update from CCWG-Accountability

• A lot of work currently going on
• CWG-Stewardship needs to be vigilant that the CCWG-Accountability work continues to meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements. This should be on track as a result of cross-CWG co-ordination (chairs, legal advisors, etc.)

5. Update on legal work 

• Sidley provided input on ICG question 9
• Written update requested on status of bylaw drafting
• Sharon has requested whether her presence is needed in Dublin. Might be helpful if CCWG would decide to change model. Participation could also be done by email / phone. Take note of time difference.
• Support for having Sharon available by phone / email as needed

Action item: Chairs to confirm to Sharon that her physical presence will not be required but that she should be available to participate remotely at a minimum in the Wednesday CWG-Stewarship session.

6. AOB 

Proposal to cancel Thursday's meeting

Action item: Staff to cancel Thursday's CWG-Stewardship meeting. 

7. Closing Remarks

CWG-Stewardship meeting confirmed for Dublin on Wednesday from 9.00 - 11.00 local time. Followed by an implementation meeting later that afternoon. 

Action Items

Action item: Chairs to send implementation action list to ICG, noting this is an initial draft with updated / formatted version to follow by Friday

Action item: Staff to format implementation action list so it is comparable to ICG format prior to Dublin

Action item: All to send any other items that need to be added the the implementation action items by Thursday at the latest

Action item: Chairs to share implementation action item list with ICANN staff working on implementation

Action item: Staff to update response to question 1 as discussed - CWG-Stewardship to review.

Action item: Staff to update response to Q7 as discussed. 

Action item: Chairs to confirm to Sharon that her physical presence will not be required but that she should be available to participate remotely at a minimum in the Wednesday CWG-Stewarship session.

Action item: Staff to cancel Thursday's CWG-Stewardship meeting. 

Transcript

Recordings

Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1hxo1fvvvl/

MP3 recording is available here:  

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (10/6/2015 11:34) Welcome all to the CWG Stewardship Meeting #68 on 6 October @ 17:00 UTC!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:53) hello all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:54) hi

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:56) no point ringing me I guess I kW

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:56) should read be on AC

  Jonathan Robinson: (11:57) Hello All

  Brenda Brewer: (11:57) Thank you Cheryl.

  Paul Kane: (11:58) Evening all!!

  Lise Fuhr: (11:59) Hello

  Keith Davidson ccNSO: (11:59) Hi all

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (12:00) Evening

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:00) good evening all!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:00) morning... well 0400

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:01) Hello.

  Milton Mueller: (12:01) greetings all

  Milton Mueller: (12:02) is there any sound yet? because if there is I am not hearing it

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:02) No sound yet

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (12:02) pretty quiet now

  Milton Mueller: (12:02) good

  Brenda Brewer: (12:05) Seun is on Audio only with a  muted line.

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:09) @Lise. Comparable -  meaning prepare our Implementation Inventory in the same format as those of teh otehr two OCs so that they are directly comparable

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (12:12) Will back soon

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (12:14) (sound problems)

  Keith Davidson ccNSO: (12:15) agree Jonathan - things do keep moving and we need to be dynamic in that regard

  Paul Kane: (12:15) @Jonathan - agree,  I would like to emphasise that ICANN/IANA should advise us (the community) when they will allocate the resources to implement the SLE requirements

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:16) Hello, all; sorry to be late.  I was chairing another call.

  Wale Bakare: (12:19) Hi everyone

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:21) looks good to me

  Paul Kane: (12:22) Q7 - question for clarification?

  Marika Konings: (12:25) This response was proposed by Avri on the last call.

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:25) I synced the document to the question / response for discussion

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:27) in other words it becomes answerable to the CCWG proposals

  Milton Mueller: (12:27) Could you come up with stronger language, but short of mandatory, namely that the presumption is that IFR or specifal IFR recommendationhs be followed?

  Milton Mueller: (12:28) Yes, the expectation is that the IFR be followed.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:29) I think the point of mandatory is that it offers no leeway.  There should be an option for identifying where a recomendatuion might be better adopted in a different way

  Paul Kane: (12:29) Thanks Milton - just needs to be firm/clear

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:29) nuy the general expectation is that it would be implemented

  Keith Davidson ccNSO: (12:32) Can we revert to being able to scroll through the response document please?

  Milton Mueller: (12:32) then you need to clarify that

  Milton Mueller: (12:32) (the distinction that Alan made)

  Paul Kane: (12:34) Works for me - thanks Jonathan

  Milton Mueller: (12:34) If the first statement is that there is a preumptionof implementation it is ok with me

  Keith Davidson ccNSO: (12:34) +! Jonathan

  Milton Mueller: (12:36) I still have a question about 2

  Paul Kane: (12:37) I support Chuck's email proposal of 17:44 on 6th Oct.

  Keith Davidson ccNSO: (12:40) And the first principle in this debate is that ICANN should not ever be able to also be the Root Zone Maintainer, unless there is broad ICANN community support for the concept

  Keith Davidson ccNSO: (12:42) Agree with Milton that the group comments were not accurately recorded too

  Milton Mueller: (12:43) really? you had no opinion?

  Alan Greenberg: (12:47) That is not what I said. I said it would be covered (ie an appropriate agreement) but the CWG does not need to focus on it.

  Alan Greenberg: (12:48) That goes along with the original NTIA statement that the RZM will be addressed by a seprate but parallel effort.

  Paul Kane: (12:50) I think the propsal is clear... but at this stage we should not be changing too many parts.  The RZM Agreement is outside of our scope

  Milton Mueller: (12:51) The Verisign CA is out of scope, the RZM is not

  Milton Mueller: (12:51) Read the charter, Paul

  Alan Greenberg: (12:53) The work that Akram referred to was the ICANN-Verisign proposal regarding how to effect the transition without simultaneous code changes.

  Milton Mueller: (12:57) May I ask that the Draft Response be modified slightly as follows

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:58) it seems a little problematic to me to get the community process out by deferring to the USG

  Milton Mueller: (12:59) The Verisign/ICANN proposal is about how to logistically eliminate NTIA proposals at the moment of transition, without introducing any risk. The Verisign/ICANN proposal addesses onlyt pp 1150, Section 1. Section 2 has not, to the CWG-Stewardship's knowledge, been addressed, and this can bo done only by the NTIA. The CWG does not feel confident making additional plans or proposals until  it knows more about what the NTIA will do

  Seun: (13:02) there is reference to a meeting with NTIA but don't think that was sent to the CWG unless I missed something

  Alan Greenberg: (13:03) Normally ICG leaders are on that call, but none today.

  Seun: (13:04) kay thanks Jonathan, can we have summary of what was discussed sent to the list (those that concern CWG)

  Milton Mueller: (13:07) ;-)

  Seun: (13:10) is it now confirmed there won't be cwg meeting on Thursday??

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:10) @Seun. Yes. I am happy to provide link and / or .ppt for reference. I think the implemetation list from the programme management group is interesting to this group.

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:12) @Greg. Chairs do not propose that Sharon monitors continuously but rather that she is available for ad-hoc consultation IF necessary

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:13) Note: Holly Gregory will be there on behalf of CCG and so monitoring developements in CCWG and aware of CWG requirements

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:13) CCG = CCWG

  Seun: (13:13) I think those will be sufficient

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:13) I think reaching by phone will be okay, given there are no substantive issues at this time.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:14) I also don't see a critical legal issue where we need to keep counsel close.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:14) @Jonathan, thanks for the clarification.\

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:16) Thanks all.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:16) bye all

  Seun 2: (13:16) Thanks to the Co-Chairs and everyone. bye for now.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:17) thanks everyone.. Talk again soon then

  Wale Bakare: (13:17) Thanks, bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:17)  bye for now

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:17) Have we got the action to modify the implementaiton list into same format as ICG

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:17) bye

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:17) Bye!

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (13:17) bye

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (13:17) Bye

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (13:17) Good night from London!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:17) bye & thanks.  good outcomes

  Mary Uduma: (13:17) ,Bye All

  Paul Kane: (13:17) bye good eve all