Page History
Attendees:
Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji, Staffan Jonson (11)
Participants: Alan Greenberg, Alissa Cooper, Allan MacGillivray, Brenden Kuerbis, Chuck Gomes, Desiree Miloshevic, Guru Acharya, Jari Arkko, Leon Sanchez, Liano Teo, Maarten Simon, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Mathieu Weill, Sabine Meyer, Tomohiro Fujisaki, Wale Bakare (17)
Staff: Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings, Samantha Eisner
Guests: Demi Getschko, Gordon Chillcott, Jean, Jennifer Chung, Luca Urech, Lynn St.Amour, Nurani Nimpuno, Sam Dickinson, Thomas Rickert, Vidushi Marda
Apologies: Robert Guerra, Olivier Crepin-LeBlondApologies: Martin Boyle, Andrew Sullivan
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Agenda
1. Opening remarks
2. CCWG-Accountability
A. Update from CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs
B. Impacts for CWG-Stewardship dependencies
3. Implementation
A. Update on planning from ICANN (see also session at 15:30)
B. CWG-Stewardship role & oversight
C. SLEs
D. IPR
4. Legal
A. Progress update on Bylaws drafting
B. Issues for the CWG
5. AOB
6. Closing remarks
Notes
Notes CWG-Stewarship Meeting 21 October 2015
1. Opening remarks
Welcome of CCWG-Accountability Chairs and Trang Nguyen, ICANN Staff Implementation Team
2. CCWG-Accountability
A. Update from CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs
- See light at the end of the tunnel
- See presentation that focused on core points that relate to the CWG-Stewardship
- CCWG-Accountability is not changing the policy-making aspects of the ICANN community - important to emphasise.
- Current status of SO/ACs remains the same
- Areas of concern in public comment: reallocation/ concentration of power; membership rights/risk of capture.
- Three phases for community decisions - 1) Engagement, 2) Escalation, 3) Enforcement
- Moving towards consensus instead of voting in the community forum - consensus defined by the level of support, not only the level of objections
- Enforcement is ultimate mechanism - discussing membership and designator member
- Based on feedback from community and ICANN, a number of modifications have been made in relation to the budget requirements, but the CCWG-Accountability is of the view that the current proposal meets the CWG-Stewardship requirements. PTI budget would be ring-fenced and subject to separate veto.
- Enforcement mechanism would also be able to deliver other aspects of CWG-Stewardship requirements. CCWG Accountability currently evaluating the differences of the two models (Designator / Single Member) to determine the differences, but also ensure that all the requirements are met. In both models, all SO/ACs would be involved in the decision-making process.
B. Impacts for CWG-Stewardship dependencies
- When available, CWG-Stewardship will review final proposal to confirm that its requirements are met.
3. Implementation
A. Update on planning from ICANN (see also session at 15:30)
- See presentation
- Implementation timeline anticipated to be a minimum of 4 months
- Administrative prep is already taking place, followed by planning and pre-work while the proposal would be in the NTIA Review & Implementation phase
- Implementation would commence after NTIA approval. Until that time status quo is maintained.
- On September 30, 2016 a contract would need to be in place with the Root Zone Maintainer to ensure continuity and stability. Is being negotiated with VeriSign - continuation of current services, but allows for change after transition if so determined by the community.
- DT O to work with ICANN Staff on FY17 Budget Planning. ICANN Management will finalise assumptions on Transition/PTI by 15 January 2016.
B. CWG-Stewardship role & oversight
- CWG-Stewardship will likely need to play a role in review and possible oversight of the work of staff implementation to make sure it meets the intent of the policy recommendations.
C. SLEs
DT has captured current process. Approx. 80% of current log files will be able to address the SLEs identified. Using parallel track process to populate the SLE. Looking forward to receiving the data so that SLE can be populated. Once that has happened it will be circulated to the CWG-Stewardship. Note, NTIA will need to approve sharing of data first before that further steps can be taken.
D. IPR
Need a small team to draft requirements which are then reverted back to the CWG-Stewardship for approval. This team should also factor in the proposals submitted by the other communities. The other communities are looking forward to working with CWG-Stewardship on this topic.
4. Legal
A. Progress update on Bylaws drafting
See update provided by email by Legal Advisors
B. Issues for the CWG
TBD
5. AOB
6. Closing remarks
- Pick up items on list
- Schedule meeting for week of 2 November.
Action Items
Documents
Transcript
Recordings
Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4sol4xzmhu/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal
MP3 recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/meetings/dublin2015/cwg-stewardship-21oct15-en.mp3
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer:Hello, my name is Brenda and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants, ensuring that they are heard equally with those who are “in-room” participants. When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please provide your name and affiliation if you have one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud of the mic, once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the mic.Any questions or comments provided outside of the session time will not be read aloud.All chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Chuck Gomes (RySG):Cannot hear you
Sabine Meyer:Hm, I can
Lise Fuhr:We are having technical problems at the moment - solved in a couple of minutes hopefully
Sabine Meyer:Maybe I should change my previous statement to "could" :)
Chuck Gomes (RySG):I just spoke on the dial in number.
Sabine Meyer:did not hear that
Grace Abuhamad:Still connecting
Grace Abuhamad:One minute please
Sabine Meyer:i do hear the people who seem to be testing the mics in the room
Greg Shatan:I am participating remotely but hope to join you physically at some point.
Greg Shatan:It seems I may not be missing too much yet.
Chuck Gomes (RySG):I just spoke again. Did you hear me?
Sabine Meyer:nope
Chuck Gomes (RySG):I can hear you now.
Grace Abuhamad:This is meeting #70!
Sabine Meyer:Are you saying this is getting old, Grace?
Seun Ojedeji:What a perfect number (round enough)
Staffan Jonson:Hello all
Grace Abuhamad:Link to slides: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143659/CCWG-Engagement%20%281%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445247628000&api=v2
Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Thomas: In counting objections, are they meaasured by SO or AC?
Grace Abuhamad:@Chuck can you raise your hand in AC? Thomas is not in the AC
Grace Abuhamad:Thanks @Chuck
Lise Fuhr:Seun I see your hand - I will get back to you after Mathieu's presentation
Grace Abuhamad:Queue is closed after Avri
Jonathan Robinson:Please can this staff slide or slides be circulated to the CWG list
Grace Abuhamad:Yes will do now
Guru Acharya:In my opinion, in case a shift to the designator model is made, the following minimum conditions must be met by the CCWG to ensure that separability is not weakened: 1) First, the bylaws must provide a clear and unambiguous responsibility for the board to not reject the result of the community separation process. 2) Second, transparency mechanisms, including DIDP reforms, must be shifted to work stream 1 in order to ensure that ICANN can not frustrate arbitration proceedings by refusing to provide documents in case of an ex-parte judgement. 3) Third, the nomcom must make take measures to ensure that the replacement board, which is selected after a board spill, does not take the same decision as the previous board. These measures may include increased transparency in selection process or molding interview questions according to community decisions. 4) Fourth, there must be a new round for public comments for the changed proposal; and the community feedback must be sincerely taken into account while determining
Guru Acharya:consensus
Seun Ojedeji:I am in rough agreement with 3 and 4, I believe 1 would be address unnecessary; we need board to have the option to refuse based on their rationale and when that is not acceptable the community can remove them (after exhausting the escalation process). Item 3 and 4 will then kick in accodingly.
Seun Ojedeji:@Guru I am in rough agreement with 3 and 4, I believe 1 would be unnecessary; we need board to have the option to refuse based on their rationale and when that is not acceptable the community can remove them (after exhausting the escalation process). Item 3 and 4 will then kick in accodingly.
Jari Arkko:my point is on IPR
Jari Arkko:(feel free to schedule when it is appropriate to speak about that)
Grace Abuhamad:DTO members include: Cheryl Langdon-OrrOlivier Crepin LeblondAlan GreenbergChuck GomesMary UdumaVika Mpisane
Alissa Cooper:I have a question on the general process during implementation
Nurani Nimpuno:I raise my hand for Izumi to speak :)
Nurani Nimpuno:Thanks
Grace Abuhamad:We'll schedule for Thursday Nov 5 at 11:00 UTC
Greg Shatan:Apologies for not being in the room. I would be pleased to assist in dealing with the IPR implementation.
Jonathan Robinson:Thanks Greg. We'll put out a call for subject matter experts
