Page History
...
Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Maarten Simon, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Wanawit Ahkuputra (12)
Participants: Alan Greenberg, Alissa Cooper, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Sullivan, Chuck Gomes, Gary Hunt, Mark Carvell, Matthew Shears, Nathalie Coupet, Philip Corwin, Sabine Meyer (11)
Legal Counsel: Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Rebecca Grapsas, Yael Resnick (4)
Staff: Akram Atallah, Brenda Brewer, Berry Cobb, Elise Gerich, Nathalie Vergnolle, Theresa Swinehart, Trang Nguyen, Xavier Calvez, Yuko Green
Apologies: Martin Boyle, Seun Ojedeji, Sharon Flanagan
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Agenda
- Status Update
- Implementation Update
- Key Issues (with Sidley)
- PTI Articles of Incorporation
- PTI Governance Documents
- Conflict of Interest Policy
- Board Code of Conduct
- Expected Standard of Behavior
- PTI Bylaws
- Naming Functions Agreement
- Services Agreement
- IANA IPR
- Client Committee
- AOB
Notes
1. Status Update (Chairs)
Action Items from last call (#84)
- ACTION (ICANN): Circulate the RZERC qualification to CWG mail list - DONE
- ACTION (ICANN Legal): Review Sidley's comments on 3 governance documents and bring version 2 documents to CWG for review – SIDLEY REVIEWING ICANN’S 2ND DRAFT
- ACTION (CWG): Review the recirculated Annex C table before the next CWG meeting/s
- ACTION (Chairs): Confirm next meeting/s date and time - DONE
2. Implementation Update (Staff)
ACTION (ICANN): Set up the Doodle Polle and schedule a DT-A call
ACTION (ICANN): Set up the wider group call to discuss Names SLE (This call to happen after the DT-A call
ACTION (ICANN): Circulate the latest RZERC Charter draft to CWG list
3. Key Issues (with Sidley)
- PTI Articles - CWG's comment letter finalized for the Public Comment
ACTION (Chairs): Submit the comment letter to Public Comment forum for the PTI Articles of Incorporation within 24 hours
- Version 2 of the PTI Governance Documents are under Sidley's review but there should not be any controvertial issues
- Draft CWG comment letter for PTI Bylaws is circulated to CWG mail list for review
- The proposed PTI budgeting process will be reviewed by ICANN BFC
ACTION (Sidley): Work directly with ICANN legal to further develop the Naming Function Agreement
- Services Agreement will be reviewed in detail when the first draft is made available
ACTION (Paul Kane): Highlight the 2005 GAC Principle and Guidelines and framework of interpretation in the CWG mail list
- First drafts of IANA IPR License Agreement and Community Agreement have been circulated by IETF and the Sidley’s redlines have been sent back to IANA IPR mail list
- Continue developing the IANA IPR agreements within the smaller group before bringing it back to CWG for discussion
5. AOB
- CWG meeting every Thursday and new invitations to be sent
Action Items
- ACTION (ICANN): Set up the Doodle Polle and schedule a DT-A call
- ACTION (ICANN): Set up the wider group call to discuss Names SLE (This call to happen after the DT-A call
- ACTION (ICANN): Circulate the latest RZERC Charter draft to CWG lis
- ACTION (SidleyChairs): Work directly with ICANN legal to further develop the Naming Function Agreement Submit the comment letter to Public Comment forum for the PTI Articles of Incorporation within 24 hours
- ACTION (Sidley): Work directly with ICANN legal to further develop the Naming Function Agreement
- ACTION (Paul Kane): Highlight the 2005 GAC Principle and Guidelines and framework of interpretation in the CWG mail list
Transcript
Recordings
- Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8xx1ztkm2d/
- MP3 recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/stewardship-transition/cwg-iana-28jul16-en.mp3
Documents
- Agenda Item 2: CWG Update 28Jul2016.pdf
- Agenda Item 3: CWG Comment Letter_PTI Articles.pdf
- Agenda Item 3: Draft PTI Bylaws - Comments from CWG Stewardship
- Agenda item 3: Redline - Naming Function Agreement - Sidley Draft 7.27.16.pdf
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (7/28/2016 08:36) Good day all and welcome to CWGIANA MEeting #85 on 28 July 2016 @ 14:00 UTC!
Lise Fuhr: (08:57) I am on my phone and will call in shortly - n
Lise Fuhr: (08:57) my Adobe is limited
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (08:57) Bonjour tout le monde
Gary Hunt - UK Government: (08:57) Good afternoon from London
Joshua Hofheimer (Sidley): (08:58) Good morning
Jonathan Robinson: (08:59) Hello All
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (08:59) Hi all
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:00) Hi
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (09:01) Hi all
Yuko Green: (09:01) Hello all! We will get started within a few minutes
Eduardo Diaz (ALAC): (09:01) ¡Hola a todos!
Yuko Green: (09:08) Action Items from last week:
Yuko Green: (09:08) 1. Circulate the RZERC qualification to CWG mail list - DONE
Yuko Green: (09:09) 2. Review Sidley's comments on 3 governance documents and bring version 2 documents to CWG for review -Sidley reviewing the 2nd drafts from ICANN
Yuko Green: (09:09) 3. Review the recirculated Annex C table before the next CWG meeting/s (CWG)
Yuko Green: (09:09) 4. Confirm next meeting/s date and time - DONE
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (09:13) How many DTA members?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:17) In the CWG call on SLEs last week I suggested that I would appreciate it if DT-A submitted its recommendations to the full CWG.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:17) I don't think others have to be on the DT-A call.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:17) Agree with Paul.
Paul Kane: (09:18) Agree
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:20) Trang: Please send the latest RZERC charter draft to the CWG list.
Trang Nguyen: (09:22) You're welcome, Alan!
Trang Nguyen: (09:23) @Chuck, will do.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:23) Thanks Trang.
matthew shears: (09:24) agree with language proposed by Sidley on purpose
matthew shears: (09:29) very good question Avri
Akram: (09:32) wouldn't that go through the ICANN board first?
Trang Nguyen: (09:32) I believe the Naning Function Agreement contains contractual obligation for PTI to implement recommendations of the IRF and SCWG.
Akram: (09:32) I think Alan just addressed it
matthew shears: (09:32) @ Trang - do you have a reference for that?
Rebecca Grapsas (Sidley): (09:36) The empowered community has a veto right over changes to PTI's jurisdiction of incorporation (ICANN Bylaws Section 16.2(b)) but not in relation to changes to PTI's principal office
Rebecca Grapsas (Sidley): (09:38) We can give the EC an approval right by embedding in the articles (per Sharon's email to the client committee yesterday) if the CWG wants to pursue that
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:38) Probbly worht while to do so Rebecca
Rebecca Grapsas (Sidley): (09:39) If so, we will need to add to the comment letter
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:39) closing known doors etc.,
Akram: (09:39) is the location of PTI an issue without separation of pti?
Trang Nguyen: (09:40) Apologies. I lost connectivity. Just got reconnected.
Avri Doria: (09:40) could a separation happen with these articles?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:40) If there is good reason then surely the EC would support anyway
matthew shears: (09:41) agree jonathan - one would hope so
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:42) I don't feel stngly either way but an edit if made to the letter would seem simple and possible if needs be
Paul Kane: (09:42) We need to trust ICANN - so location is up to them. Not a big deal
Trang Nguyen: (09:42) @Matthew, Sections 6.3, 8.2, and 14.3 of the naming function agreement that ICANN circulated (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-July/005251.html) has references to PTI being required to implement recommendations of the IFRT and SCWG.
Alan Greenberg: (09:43) I don't think location is a big deal in this case.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:44) well tht is a measure Greg ;-)
Lise Fuhr 3: (09:44) go ahead with this version
matthew shears: (09:44) OK
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:44) like I said not concerned either way
Greg Shatan: (09:44) Thank you for your support, CLO...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:45) we have enough checks and balances IMO
Nathalie Coupet: (09:45) @Trang: The link doesn't work
matthew shears: (09:45) understood thanks Jonathan
Trang Nguyen 3: (09:47) Correct link: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-July/005251.html
Nathalie Coupet: (09:48) Thank you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:49) Thx Rebecca
Xavier Calvez: (09:51) Chuck, let me know if you need me to jump in after you.
Rebecca Grapsas (Sidley): (09:53) Sounds good, Jonathan
matthew shears: (09:56) lost jonathan?
Xavier Calvez: (09:56) I think Jonathan is gone for a beer...
Avri Doria: (09:56) he looks muted
Greg Shatan: (09:57) Avri, that's just his demeanor.
Greg Shatan: (09:58) He's really quite vibrant.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:58) LOL
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:58) Ah. It's *that* phase of the call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:59) audio gremmlins?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:59) YES clear now
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (09:59) It's always after midnight somewhere...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (09:59) :-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:04) Thx Josh, yes I agree Jonathan we do nt need to comment unluess we see need to do so
Yuko Green: (10:04) 07 August is targeted day
Yuko Green: (10:04) to open the public comment
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:05) CONFUSED NIW
Yuko Green: (10:05) Please review the timeline shared during the last CWG call: file:///C:/Users/yuko.green/Downloads/PTI%20Document%20review%20process%20and%20timeline%20(1).pdf
Jonathan Robinson: (10:06) Too many documents and screens!
Yuko Green: (10:06) Oops apology, here iss the correct link: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490620/PTI%20Document%20review%20process%20and%20timeline.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1469085806000&api=v2
Yuko Green: (10:06) Page 2 shows the timeline
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:07) thx for the clarification Yuko and Trang thought I had missed a PC for a moment then ;-)
Paul Kane: (10:10) Ahh ok
Jonathan Robinson: (10:11) @Alan. We are not discussing the IPR here
Jonathan Robinson: (10:11) IPR is the next point
Avri Doria: (10:12) ok, i was surprised w were there already.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:12) Yes we seemed t have jumoed in the Agenda
Alan Greenberg: (10:14) Sorry for jumping the gun...
Alan Greenberg: (10:14) Too many documents!
Joshua Hofheimer (Sidley): (10:15) correct, Jonathan
Greg Shatan: (10:15) Death by paper....
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (10:17) Sorry, but I have to leave. Good bye everyone!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:18) Bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:20) the FOI takes into account the 2005 GAC Principles as opposed to superseed them Paul
Paul Kane: (10:21) Will do
Elise Gerich: (10:21) The FOI says: “Nothing in the Framework of Interpretation limits or constrains the applicability of the 2005 GAC "Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains".”
Paul Kane: (10:21) I am a little out of the loop on thi -
Paul Kane: (10:21) So rely on ccTLD Collegues
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:21) indeed Elise
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:22) so your te other erson who read our work :_)
Paul Kane: (10:22) :-)
Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (10:23) Cheryl is correct: 2005 GAC principles still stand.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:27) Of course, the Trust hadn't seen the comments back from the CWG before the call, either, so it was not possible for us to discuss the substance of the agreements.
Maarten Simon: (10:28) @ Mark: the 2005 GAC principles stand but that does not make it a an accepted policy
Paul Kane: (10:28) For the avoidance of doubt I agree the Government can take action on it subjects (in country) on public policy matters, however it does not give authority to ICANN to impose its will on private sector actors outside of jurisdiction. ... hence concern about it being in a naming agreement. Care not to fetter the discretion of a Board as it violates corp law.... which is why it is advise !!
Alissa Cooper: (10:29) Perhaps we have different definitions of goodwill.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:30) I want to note that we have two weeks to nail these agreements down
Avri Doria: (10:30) i think it may be the time. if the sorrow and ifference are leaking out, then we should discuss given how little time there is. What are the criticial differences.?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:31) and how do we fix them
matthew shears: (10:31) + 1 Avri
Andrew Sullivan: (10:33) I think that is indeed one of the gaps (being described now)
Andrew Sullivan: (10:33) but I don't think it's the only one
Andrew Sullivan: (10:33) The Trust isn't meeting to discuss the CWG's comments until later today, however
Andrew Sullivan: (10:35) There never actually was an agreement on the Principal Terms, by the way. We just stopped working on them because we ran out of time.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:36) To answer Chuck, yes it is. It's a requirement of the RIRs
Andrew Sullivan: (10:36) therefore it must happen before the transition
Andrew Sullivan: (10:37) that's in the proposal
Greg Shatan: (10:37) I don't think that's an entirely accurate characterizatiion of where we ended up on the Principal Terms. I saw this as a stable draft, to say the least.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:37) noted Andrew
Andrew Sullivan: (10:38) I thought it was too, but the last meeting we had on it the names community said it had a bunch of open issues from Sidley's comments
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:38) Thanks Andrew.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:38) and they were going to be worked on some more, but I reported that we were drafting proposals in keeping with the draft as it was
Andrew Sullivan: (10:38) because we had too little time to do things serially
Greg Shatan: (10:39) Andrew, the only open issues were those related to the coments on the Trust structure. The rest of it was done.
Alissa Cooper: (10:39) The transfer of the IPR is a prequisite for the transition.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:40) Thanks Alissa.
Alissa Cooper: (10:40) It is in the proposal. It was never just a nice-to-have. It was always a prerequisite.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:40) According to Alissa and Andrew it is a position of the IETF and RIRs.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:41) It's not a position of the IETF
Alissa Cooper: (10:41) No, it is not a position of the IETF, it is a requirement of the proposal, the same way the creation of the PTI is.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:41) It's in the ICG proposal, yes. What Alissa said
Alan Greenberg: (10:41) Only RIRs
Alissa Cooper: (10:41) It is in the ICG proposal, let me find the paragraph number.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:41) Thanks for correcting my understanding.
matthew shears: (10:42) so we need to resolve this issue asap
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:42) yup
Greg Shatan: (10:42) The numbers part of the proposal says :With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of theInternet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Servicesand not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator." I'm not sure an expectation = a requirement.
Greg Shatan: (10:43) But others see ti as such.
Alissa Cooper: (10:44) ICG proposal paragraphs 53-58
Avri Doria: (10:44) thanks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:45) Sounds like a clear topic fr next weeks CWG call then once the parties have progressed then
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:46) Agree Cheryl.
Jonathan Robinson: (10:46) @Cheryl. Yes. Likely. We have an IPR call provisionally scheduled for Tuesday and CWG for Thursda
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (10:47) Yes that will work I hope then
Elise Gerich: (10:47) In paragraph 57 of the ICG proposal states: Detailed implementation requirements for the entity holding the IPR will be agreed and specified and an appropriate entity will then be created or selected such that it can meet the detailed requirements. The ICG notes that the operational communities are coordinating these details, and the ICG expects this coordination to continue during the implementation phase to ensure that the requirements are met. Some of the questions that the ICG received during the public comment period relate to the implementation details. These details will become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation.
Jonathan Robinson: (10:48) @Elise. Thank-you
Greg Shatan: (10:51) There's nothing in paragraphs 53-58 that states a requirement. Paragraph 54 states: The Numbers community prefers that they be transferred to an entity independent of the IANAFunctions Operator in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community.
Avri Doria: (10:51) it was this fiduciary bit that alwasy concerned and was assured a year ago that it wasn't a problem, adjustments would be made. but i see about the problem of delay.
Alissa Cooper: (10:51) "The Numbers community expects that both are associated with the IANA functions and not with a particular IANA Functions Operator."
Alissa Cooper: (10:52) the same way the names community expects the PTI to be setup
Alissa Cooper: (10:52) if the PTI doesn't get setup, should we proceed with the transition?
Avri Doria: (10:52) is that the case. could a different trust be set up in 2 weeks?
Alissa Cooper: (10:52) I find the disresepct of one community for the other community's requirements, to which this community previously agreed, to be unfortunate.
Greg Shatan: (10:53) I think it's unfortunate to characterize the position of one community as "disrespect."
Avri Doria: (10:54) i appreciate the explanations.
Avri Doria: (10:54) both sides of the issue seem to make sense. though perhaps i am being naive.
Greg Shatan: (10:54) I also think it claims to much to say that we agreed to a particular formulation of the balance of interests.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:54) @Avri do you think we could hammer out an agreement about representation, who does what, what recal procedures would happen, and so on can be done in 2 weeks?
Andrew Sullivan: (10:54) Because I think it's very unlikely
Andrew Sullivan: (10:55) We didn't think we could do it in 6 months. It seems unlikely we could do it in 2 weeks
matthew shears: (10:55) I think we need to bridge the gaps with what we have at the moment
Avri Doria: (10:55) it may be more likely in a trust that only manages the IANA related cruft, were sharing does not create a liabilty for anyone.
Avri Doria: (10:55) than in the place with a fundamental impasse.
Avri Doria: (10:56) you already have a notion of a CCG, i am sure the lawyers could whipeup a trust agree for the CCG. naive, i know.
Avri Doria: (10:56) and full of typos
Philip Corwin: (10:57) Farewell. I must drop off to co-chair a WG call.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:57) Well, the CCG in _my_ understanding was supposed to be relatively lightweight and didn't need a lot of official powers
Andrew Sullivan: (10:57) but it sounds like others disagree
Avri Doria: (10:57) yeah, i understand that for the IETF trust. but in a standalone might not be the same problem.
Andrew Sullivan: (10:58) As for the answer to Chuck's plan b question, I don't think there is one
Andrew Sullivan: (10:58) If we don't find a way to move the IPR, the proposal doesn't happen. And I don't see how we can adjust the proposal -- it's the one that NTIA and so on have all approved
Avri Doria: (10:59) yes, but it could move to a standalone, as was orignally considered. we wnt with the IETF trust becasue it was easier. maybe it isn't.
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:59) Is getting approval from the three communities and NTIA any harder or unrealistic than delaying the transition?
Andrew Sullivan: (11:00) given that NTIA would in that case _certainly_ be working on a detail of the transition and therefore acting outside its funded mandate this year, I think it is harder yes
matthew shears: (11:00) I am very cibcerbed that we are suggesting that there might be a delay to the transiton - we need to find a way of making this work
matthew shears: (11:00) concerned
Andrew Sullivan: (11:01) I share your concern, as I think I tried to suggest in my spoken remarks
Avri Doria: (11:01) btw, i tend to trust the IETF TRust telling me to trust them.
Avri Doria: (11:01) but if everyone can't, then what?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:02) That's my question Avri.
matthew shears: (11:02) +1 Jonathan
Alan Greenberg: (11:03) @Avri, then we accept something thatwe feel is less than perfect or even acceptable. An agreement is essential, our access to the IPR/domain name is not. And the chances of us losing access is impressively small.
Greg Shatan: (11:03) The risk under taht scenario could come if the IETF Trust continued to hold itself out as the IANA for names, even after the names community moved away from dealing with them.. That could create confusion and possibly even fragmentation, though that's highly unlikely.
Avri Doria: (11:03) is it required that it be transfered to IETF trust?
Avri Doria: (11:03) sorry for not rembering the details.
Andrew Sullivan: (11:03) I really think we ought to note that the IETF _specifically_ got itself out of the IANA business a long time ago on purpose
Alan Greenberg: (11:04) It is reuired to be transferred to some sort of trust or equiv. IETF trust was taken as the reasonable one.
Andrew Sullivan: (11:04) so I'm trying to understand why the IETF Trust would suddenly unilaterally try to put itself back in that business
Jonathan Robinson: (11:04) @AVRI. IMO. Technically not. But , practically, there is no alternative on the table
Avri Doria: (11:04) or that it be tranfered to a mutually agreeable trust. ok will go back a re read.
Alan Greenberg: (11:04) No longer a chance to take other options in my view
Avri Doria: (11:04) i do not see why Alan.
Andrew Sullivan: (11:04) I hope that people have been looking at the respective budgets of the IETF and ICANN. The IETF's annual budget is roughly what it costs for one ICANN meeting
Andrew Sullivan: (11:04) we do not want to do this. We're doing a favour to everyone
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:05) Thx Alisa
Avri Doria: (11:05) can we put this at the top of next week's agenda for CWG?
Alan Greenberg: (11:05) We could certainly set up a trust in 2 weeks. Getting agreement from all of the parties on the terms is, in my opinion, not a viable option.
Greg Shatan: (11:05) I'm still confident we don't need to find another option. I hope that confidence is not misplaced.
Avri Doria: (11:05) and hopefully those in the room will have solved by then
Andrew Sullivan: (11:05) I think we can get this done too
Greg Shatan: (11:06) Kumbaya.
Avri Doria: (11:06) ca someone be looking into the fact about an alternate over the next week so we have the facts on that?
Avri Doria: (11:06) in parallel?
Andrew Sullivan: (11:06) I'm late for the Trust's meeting on this, so I'm jumping off now
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:06) Let's follow Cheryl's suggestion and revisit this next Thursday after the IPR team meets.
Andrew Sullivan: (11:06) bye
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (11:06) Could a commitment to find a olution be agreed at the moment, so as not to put the transition in jeopardy?
Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:07) Very important discussion. Thanks all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:07) the time shifts are apprciated Jonathan thx
Avri Doria: (11:07) bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:07) Lots done good call tak next week then
Maarten Simon: (11:07) bye
Yuko Green: (11:07) Thank you all
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (11:07) thanks Jonathan. Good call.
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (11:07) bye
