Versions Compared

Old Version 13

changes.mady.by.user Brenda Brewer

Saved on

compared with

New Version 14

changes.mady.by.user Brenda Brewer

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Members:  Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Elise Lindeberg, Jonathan Robinson, Maarten Simon, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Wanawit Ahkuputra   (9)

Participants:  Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes, James Gannon, Mark Carvell, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Robin Gross, Sabine Meyer   (10)

Guests:  Sharon Flanagan 

Staff:  Brenda Brewer, Marika Konings, Nathalie Vergnolle, Trang Nguyen, Yuko Green, David Conrad, Kurt Rossler

Apologies:  Andrew Sullivan; Grace Abuhamad, Seun Ojedeji

 

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**

Agenda

1. Opening Remarks

2. Implementation Update

3. Legal Issues/ Client Committee Update

    • PTI Formation Documents (PTI Articles of Association, PTI Bylaws and COI policy)
    • ICANN-PTI Contract
    • IANA IPR

4. CSC Charter Reviews and RZERC

5. Project Costs Support Team (PCST) Update

6. Closing Remarks

Notes

1. Opening remarks

  • IOTF and Client Committee have been meeting - their work needs to be brought back to the CWG-Stewardship to make sure there is syncronisation

2. Implementation Update

  • See slides presented during the meeting
  • What is the plan & process between 21 May (end of comment period) and next step (Board consideration)? Theresa will be sending out an email later 
    today what occurs between 21 May and Board consideration on 27 May. Will summary of comments be provided and will feedback from CWG-Stewardship 
    be solicited? At minimum, comments that would require changes or updates, those would be co-ordinated with the Bylaw co-ordination group. CWG-Stewardship is represented in that group and the assumption is there would be reporting back from that co-ordination group.
  • What is the status of paper on secondment to better understand rationale as well as money flow? Paper has not been shared yet - still addressing one 
    issue with ICANN HR. As soon as that has been addressed it will be shared with the IOTF. Aim is to circulate it together with the other PTI related documents 
    that are in development.
  • IOTF is expected to confirm whether proposed implementation is conform the intent of the recommendations. Needs to remain vigilant to ensure that 
    implementation meets the intent of the recommendations.
  • Concerns were expressed in Marrakesh about what was being proposed - until we see those documents, CWG-Stewardship will not know whether those concerns have been addressed. Needs to be able to review and respond and able to deal with any concerns.
  • PTI needs to be self-sufficient - separability is part of the proposal. Need to know what end-game is, in case of separation in case of secondment of employees. Discussed before - not a given that staff would move with the function if the performance 
    had been so bad that separation had become a reality. 
  • Primary question is whether staff will want to go to PTI if they are not seconded. 
  • Need to make sure to understand the motivation and perspective on secondment. What are the terms and conditions of those secondments and how does 
    that impact on the way that PTI was devised from basic day to day to eventual separation.

3. Legal Issues / Client Committee Update

PTI Formation Documents

  • See document circulated - Sidley has requested input from CWG-Stewardship on number of occasions. 
  • Consider preparing a series of answers and work through these with the CWG-Stewardship.
  • #15 - Chair (Director) selected by ICANN - not a foregone conclusion that the chair would be selected by ICANN. Chair/Officer is an unusual officer to 
    see in corporate formations. Understood as chair to be selected from 5 Board members but would be good to clarify. 
  • Limited remit exists with regards to ccTLDs. Perception that parent - child relationship can be changed easily. Need better understanding why it is not 
    prudent to capture related annexes C, 7 and 8 from CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal in the Bylaws. May require special session of the client committee.
  • Consider whether there are any volunteers to develop draft responses to the Sidley comments or whether to ask the IOTF. Leave it open to CWG-Stewardship to comment - staff to capture the comments and progress responses through IOTF. 

Action item #1: CWG-Stewardship to review PTI Formation Document Review by Sidley and share comments / feedback on the mailing list. 

Action item #2: Dedicate specific time on next client committee to discuss issue in relation to where annexes detailing relationship with ccTLDs should 
be best captured (contract or Bylaws).

Action item #3: Staff to hold pen on populating draft responses based on CWG-Stewardship and IOTF input. 

ICANN-PTI Contract

  • In the pipeline, not received yet.

Action item #4: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review ICANN-PTI contract once available

IANA IPR

  • See Proposed Principle Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements circulated by Greg
  • Proposal to send draft for review by to Sidley - other communities have also asked their legal counsel to review. 

Action item #5: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review proposed principle terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements

4. CSC Charter Reviews and RZERC

  • See slides - update on CSC work
  • RZERC - draft charter was circulated with resulted in substantial discussion on the list. Key changes need to be identified, if any are to be made. Not 
    clear what words in the draft charter are considered offensive and have been objected to on the mailing list. CWG-Stewardship looked at NTIA Authorization role. Focus of discussion has been on whether RZERC also covers operational changes from other operational 
    communities. Not clear what needs to be changed as charter does seem to imply it is only focused on naming related changes. Other communities appear 
    to be fine with RZERC to not get involved in any changes that relate to changes associated to the other communities. RZERC provides input does not have 
    authority - authority lies with the ICANN Board. RZERC provides expert and technical input on changes proposed or propose changes that are deemed 
    appropriate. The contracts/MOUs with other other operational communities and ICANN have not yet been written - perhaps this concern should be addressed 
    therein if those operational communities so wish?
  • Does ICANN need this function for the work to be done by other operational communities? Board would need external vetting of the proposed changes, whether 
    it is from RZERC or something like RZERC.
  • Consider renaming RZERC to allow it to be more general than just rootzone?
  • Make sure RZERC is fit for purpose for naming related aspects, but make sure it is inclusive so that other communities could join if they would want to. 

Action item #6 - CWG-Stewardship to review draft charter and communicate any proposed changes to implementation staff. Input to be received by 17 May at the latest.

Action item #7 -  CWG-Stewardship Chairs to share draft charter and remind of function and role of RZERC with other operational communities for their information. 

5. Project Cost Support Team (PCST) Update

  • CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship incurred significant costs as part of its work. Board engaged in conversations with Chairs and SO/AC 
    leadership which resulted in the formation of PCST. Primary job is to report and assist with the controlling of costs. Preliminary 
    report seen by chairs - not clear yet whether it is to be shared. Discussed with co-chairs of CCWG-Accountability. Intend to provide 
    feedback to the authors & Board Finance committee. Primary concern is that process appears to expect a degree of control over costs by 
    the co-chairs without clear mechanics for being able to do so. 

6. Closing Remarks

Action Items

Action item #1: CWG-Stewardship to review PTI Formation Document Review by Sidley and share comments / feedback on the mailing list. 

Action item #2: Dedicate specific time on next client committee to discuss issue in relation to where annexes detailing relationship with ccTLDs should 
be best captured (contract or Bylaws).

Action item #3: Staff to hold pen on populating draft responses based on CWG-Stewardship and IOTF input. 

Action item #4: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review ICANN-PTI contract once available

Action item #5: Empower client committee to request Sidley to review proposed principle terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements

Action item #6 - CWG-Stewardship to review draft charter and communicate any proposed changes to implementation staff. Input to be received by 17 May at the latest.

Action item #7 -  CWG-Stewardship Chairs to share draft charter and remind of function and role of RZERC with other operational communities for their information. 

Transcript

Recordings

Documents

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (5/12/2016 09:32) Good day all and welcome to CWG Stewardship Meeting #79 on 12 May 2016 @ 16:00 UTC!

  Jonathan Robinson: (11:00) Hello all.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (11:00) hi  all

  Jonathan Robinson: (11:00) We have typing noise.

  Greg Shatan: (11:01) Trang seems to be typing vigorously?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (11:01) :-)

  Greg Shatan: (11:01) Or perhaps it was a replay of the Kentucky Derby at the hoof level...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (11:02) :-) :-)

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:03) have we started? I don't hear anything.

  Brenda Brewer: (11:03) Not started yet.  Please stand by! 

  Martin Boyle: (11:03) Not now Greg told Trang off

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:04) oh good

  Trang Nguyen: (11:06) Sorry about that. Muted my microphone.

  Martin Boyle: (11:06) I was joking.  I *think* Greg was too!

  Alan Greenberg: (11:07) Evolution Review Comm

  Yuko Green: (11:07) Root Zone Evolution Review Committeee

  Chuck Gomes: (11:12) Just joined. Dialed in as well.  Sorry for being late.

  Greg Shatan: (11:14) I hope that was not seen as telling anyone off (especially Trang, who works like a horse but does not type like one).  I was merely jesting.

  Paul Kane: (11:25) Thanks Trang for the clarification

  James Gannon: (11:29) Sorry for being tardy, many calls

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (11:30) I agre Chuck +1

  matthew shears: (11:31) it has to be very clear how we are going to deal with separation befoire we agree to secondment

  matthew shears: (11:31) + 1 Greg

  matthew shears: (11:33) the issue of continuity of service is key - htere should not be any doubt as to how the fundtions wil be managed in the case where separation is contempltated

  Martin Boyle: (11:33) It certainly is no worse than any other separation process, isn't it?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:34) Isn't there an expectation of an RFP to find a new provider in the event of separation?

  Martin Boyle: (11:35) @Donna, generally yes

  Greg Shatan: (11:35) A new IANA provider is only one scenario.

  Greg Shatan: (11:36) Secondees are not employees of the company to which they are seconded.  They basically have rubber bands on their backs that can be pulled by their actual employer.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (11:37) makes  sense Avri/Alan

  Greg Shatan: (11:37) We need to have a plan.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:37) Agree with Avri and Alan

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:37) @Greg, I think we have processes in place that will enable the development of a plan.

  Greg Shatan: (11:37) Secondment can be used to make separating PTI from ICANN a lot more difficult.

  Martin Boyle: (11:38) ICANN is the oversight.  If it performs badly, it is pursued under accountability.  If PTI performs badly we go down the road of re-bidding.  Arbitrarily deciding to make the IFO separate for any other reasons changes the whole model and I question why we should be doing.  So agree Avri & Alan

  Greg Shatan: (11:39) Something that's done for reasons (even "any other reasons') is by definition not "arbritrary."

  Martin Boyle: (11:39) it is if the reasons are arbitrary

  matthew shears: (11:39) its not about committing individuals its about committing to processes if x or y occurs - so what happens to/or options presented to seconded persons should separation occur

  Maarten Simon: (11:40) Thanks Martin. Fully agree

  Avri Doria: (11:40) makes sense to include an ICANN non interference clause.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (11:41) agree, we don't want a circumstance where icann could withhold expertise to set up another entity

  Avri Doria: (11:41) but is offering them a year's  to not spin out, considered interference?

  Avri Doria: (11:41) ... year's salary ...

  matthew shears: (11:41) + 1 Donna

  Greg Shatan: (11:41) Arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

  Greg Shatan: (11:42) Avri, I would say yes, fairly clearly.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:46) Right

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:50) We read that to mean selection of a chair of the Board (from the directors) but it's a good point we should clarify

  Jonathan Robinson: (11:52) Paul is referring to the most recent Client COmmittee meeting

  matthew shears: (11:52) I thought the other officers/directors were selected by the nomcom

  Jonathan Robinson: (11:52) @Matthew. Selected but not appointed.

  Greg Shatan: (11:53) The fact that this is under "Officers" leads me to believe it means something else.  The Board is covered in rows 6-14.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:53) I agree Greg - it is worth clarifying

  Martin Boyle: (11:54) @Greg:  so a "reason" is never ever "based on random choice or personal whim"?  I think a lot of what people put forward as reasons fail that test

  matthew shears: (11:54) agree Greg not clear

  Jonathan Robinson: (11:58) Paul Kane, please specify the annexes to which you refer in the chat here

  Paul Kane: (11:58) Annex C , 7 and 8

  Avri Doria: (12:00) IOFT seems a good place to take some first answers

  matthew shears: (12:01) agree

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:01) Thanks all

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:03) @Greg. Following Marrakech not Helsinki

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (12:06) Gu

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (12:06) Makes sense Greg  Thanks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (12:07) agree Jonthan

  Avri Doria: (12:15) Isn't the trust of the other OC in ICANN?

  Elise Lindeberg, GAC Norway: (12:16) I have had some questions from the GAc about composition of the RZERC because it was not made clear enought  - its much clearer now that this is just a advisory role and that the final decitions lay on ICANN Board

  matthew shears: (12:17) as, I understand, the contracts/MOUs between the other OCs and ICANN have not yet been written perhaps this concern should be addressed therein if those OCs so wish?

  Greg Shatan: (12:21) If numbers and protocols don't join RZERC, maybe there should be a coordination group between the (Names) RZERC and the other communities.  Perhaps it could be the Broadly Engaged RZERC (BERZERC).

  matthew shears: (12:21) brilliant!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (12:22) LOL

  Elise Lindeberg, GAC Norway: (12:22) #GRE

  Elise Lindeberg, GAC Norway: (12:22) GREG :))

  Mark Carvell UK Government: (12:26) Greg: you don't have to be mad to work on that committee but it helps.

  Elise Lindeberg, GAC Norway: (12:31) Well,  I dont see that the ICANN Board have to ask RZERC,  - but they probably want their advice..

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:32) @Elise. Exactly. It seems to be a 2 way process. Board may ask RZERC or RZERC may make proposals

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (12:38) ok

  Elise Lindeberg, GAC Norway 2: (12:38) ok

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (12:43) it is a paradim shift

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (12:45) Good to have this main group Update meeting...  Thanks everyone...   Bye for now...

  Elise Lindeberg, GAC Norway 2: (12:45) thanks, bye :)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:45) Thank you this has been very useful indeed

  matthew shears: (12:45) good call thanks!

  Sabine Meyer: (12:45) thanks everyone & good bye!

  Trang Nguyen: (12:45) Thank you everyone. Bye.

  Greg Shatan: (12:45) Bye all!

  Maarten Simon: (12:45) bye

  Martin Boyle: (12:45) thanks, bye all