Members: Avri Doria; Elise Lindeberg; Donna Austin; Fatima Cambronero; Graeme Bunton; Greg Shatan; Jaap Akkerhuis; Lise Fuhr; Robert Guerra; Seun Ojedeji; Staffan Jonson; Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Participants: Alan Greenberg; Allan MacGillivray; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Brenden Kuerbis; Carolina Aguerre; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Manal Ismail; Chuck Gomes; Desiree Miloshevic; Amr Elsadr; Gary Hunt; Keith Davidson; Lars-Erik Forsberg; Maarten Simon; Malcolm Hutty; Mark Carvell; Martin Boyle; Matthew Shears; Milton Mueller; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy;  Tomohiro Fujisaki; Wale Bakare; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Jinkang Yao; Mary Uduma; Yasuichi Kitamura

Staff: Grace Abuhamad; Bart Boswinkel; Bernard Turcotte; Berry Cobb; Marika Konings

Apologies: Eduardo Diaz, Jonathan Robinson

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

Proposed Agenda: 

1. Welcome & Roll Call

2. Status Updates

3. Presentation and Review of Work Plan (between now and 11 January)

Announce "reading and review week" from 22 Dec-29 Dec

4. Understand the principle of separability

5. Due consideration of alternative proposal (not to exclude other proposals)

6. Review of Action Items

7. AOB


Notes and Action Items

Status Updates

Only updates from sub-group 3, 4 and 5 during today's meeting

  • RFP 3 is continuing its meetings as well as discussions on the mailing list, reviewing structural analysis of the MRT (see google doc). Next call is scheduled for Friday 19 December. CSC structural analysis document to be posted shortly. 

Action item: Everyone encouraged to provide input to the latest version of the MRT structural analysis (see - Please use the "Suggest" mode, rather than the "Edit" mode, so that your changes show up in "track changes" style, along with a marginal comment box) 

  • RFP 5 met for the second time this week. Group has discussed how to draft (form and structure) of text. Two layer approach - high level tabular approach to confirm whether criteria have been met as well as explanatory language. Next meeting on 30 December. 
  • RFP 4 also met earlier this week. Initial structure for work was presented and discussed, which includes three work streams (1 - review of technical requirements, 2 - timeline, 3 - key risks / testing). Next meeting scheduled for 23 December. Participation was limited in the last meeting so some work has been pushed out to the mailing list.


Presentation and Review of Work Plan (between now and 11 January)

  • Review of proposed meetings in December and January
  • Reading and review week from 22 Dec-29 Dec - will allow staff to develop a summary of the comments received. Following that, a small group of CWG volunteers will prepare a draft analysis of the comments received for CWG review. 


Understand the principle of separability

  • See also (draft) principles developed by the CWG
  • Aim to finalize principles by 8 January meeting (continue conversations on the mailing list, including comments received from the GAC)
  • Separability is included as a principle in this draft and has not been challenged by anyone to date
  • ALAC is of the view that it should not be a principle or core around which the proposal is built - although no objections were received in relation to the draft principles. ALAC is of the view that the same net effect can be achieved without having separability as the cornerstone of the proposal. 
  • How is this separability (in case of dooms-day scenario) achieved in the ALAC proposal?
  • Separability has been part of the system from the start - why change it now? How do you ensure accountability if you do not have the ability to change the contract? ALAC is of the view that there are other ways to achieve this than a contract, including additional accountability mechansisms. 
  • Is disagreement around how separability is built in, not necessarily around the principle itself? Yes, correct. 
  • Agreement on separability as a principle - no agreement yet on how to implement it though
  • Consider discussing criteria for separability


Due consideration of alternative proposal (not to exclude other proposals)

  • Brief overview of ALAC proposal - some of the details are left to the Acccountability CCWG as the solution is internal to ICANN (see also diagrams shared during the meeting)
  • Why is responsibility for accountability mechanisms deferred to CCWG while CWG charter makes clear that accountability relating to the IANA function is within scope of the CWG?
  • Main issue is with Contract Co. function.
  • Divestiture is solution should separabilty become necessary - who would order such divestiture would need to be further fleshed out (for example, membership organization), what would be the trigger point?
  • Consider whether RFP 4 should test the ALAC proposal? Need to wait and see what other public comments are received. 


Action item: Send out GAC letter concerning principles (Lise)

Action item: Review comments received during public comment forum

Action item: Provide input to public comment forum by 22 December

Action item:Participate in the next meeting of the CWG on 30 December at 14.00 UTC



The transcript is available here: Meeting11_18Dec.doc


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented


Organisational Doc Proposal 3.png

Organisational Doc Proposal 4.png

Call Schedule.pdf

Chat Transcript

Marika Konings:Welcome to the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG Meeting of 18 December 2014

  Robert Guerra:good day all

  Staffan:Hello all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi all


  Lise Fuhr:Hello and greetings

  Keith ccNSO:Hi all

  Sivasubramanian M:hello

  Seun Ojedeji:Hi all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Hi all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi Avri, Alan Avr

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Good afternoon!

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello

  Fatima Cambronero:hello everyone

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:hello everyone

  matthew shears:hello

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Martin - I will forward the formal letter from the GAC on the principles

  Milton:Can you provide the link to the document?


  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Thanks Elie:  will you be sending it to the list?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Sorry:  Elise

  Marika Konings:I believe the link is

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Martin - It posted to Lise and Jonathan and to the CWG today

  Robert Guerra:lost audio back in a moment

  Marika Konings:Please mute your lines and mics when not speaking - you can also do this in Adobe Connect by right clicking your mic and select mute.

  Wale Bakare:Hi everyone, afternoon/morning

  Robert Guerra:back and audio ok

  Lise Fuhr:@Robert you are after Cheryl

  Robert Guerra:ok

  Alan Greenberg:Robert VERY quiet.

  Milton:speak up louder, Robert~!

  Keith ccNSO:Cant hear


  Keith ccNSO:not much

  Sivasubramanian M:yes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Primary Landing page for RFP-5 is  here (  and notes our mandate is to focus on =>  V. NTIA RequirementsAdditionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must meet the following five requirements:Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA functions;Maintain the openness of the Internet;The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.This section should explain how your community’s proposal meets these requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA functions.Note: CWG-RFP3 and 4 should have considered this in their work and this should only be a final sanity check to produce the text confirming this requirement once 3 and 4 are completed.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ALSO  the drafting for text / contribution  wiuki page is  here (   ALL are welcome to contribute  directly  here an / or  to join the RFP-5 group at our future calls... next call is 2130 UTC  Dec 30th...

  matthew shears:apologies but what is CWG IANA2 on Sat 10 Jan?

  Grace Abuhamad:the intensive work weekend

  Grace Abuhamad:there are two calls per day so I was trying to differentiate them

  matthew shears:ok thanks!

  Grace Abuhamad:sorry for the confusion


  Milton:surprise, surprise!

  Milton:many groups preparing comments need to get them approved by their groups, which taks time

  Seun Ojedeji:Ws the comment from GAC shared on the list?

  Grace Abuhamad:It will be

  Alan Greenberg:Thanks for the reminder. I have been occupied on a personal matter but will get it sent out either today or tomorrow.

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay but I will appeciate that letters/comments don't get delayed from being sent to the CWG in future. Thanks

  matthew shears:I fully support the inclusion of separability in the principles and proposal

  Seun Ojedeji:I think we should define seperability before determnining whether that word should be included.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:I would think THE ABILITY to separate is crutial for the GAC

  Amr Elsadr:@Matt: +1.

  Seun Ojedeji:I support seperability principle if its not solely based on moving IANA out of ICANN

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:I agree to Bertrand

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Elise, this is what I mean. identifying the conditions that would trigger this "nuclear option" is different from building the system around this.

  Amr Elsadr:I think any proposal that doesn't involve seprability as a principle is a dooms-day scenario. :)

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:yes

  Seun Ojedeji:very much milton ;)

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Bertrand - I agree with Malcom - ability to separate is fundamenatal for the draft proposal

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 Bertrand

  matthew shears:I do not see that we are building this around separability - it is an option for the MRT not a foregone conclusion - by putting it in the principles and proposal we are merely ensuring that it is not precluded.  I don't see why this is such an issue

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Surely Bertrand and Malcolm are ot at odds at the level of principle.  How you do it is operational

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I do not think that anyone advocates completely doing away with separability.

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Alan

  Milton:We need to get into that world, Alan

  Milton:Olivier: that is good to know

  Avri Doria:so ALAC is not objecting to the principle it is objecting to the soltution.  one does not object to a principle as a manner of arguing about the solution.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Avri +1

  Milton:Cmplexity of the accountability changes will be far more extensive if we don't have a contractual relationship

  matthew shears:+ 1 Milton

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I would not classify the current proposal as "arcane" ("understood by few; mysterious or secret"),

  Amr Elsadr:I don't understand the complexity in seprability. This principle has always existed. Why is it suddenly complex?

  Milton:Greg: Yes, as a rhetorical move that is getting really old.  

  Alan Greenberg:@Avri, you are correct in theory. But when the principle is implicitly linked in many people mind and (pun intended) cannot be separated from each other, objecting to the core principle is easier. If the invisible words "there must be a contract" were not there inthe principle, this would be different.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):"Complex" and "arcane" are words being used instead of rational argument.

  Milton:Especially when the complex changes in accountability structures are as yet unspecified

  Amr Elsadr:@Greg: +1

  Brenden Kuerbis:Another fault - hanging all repsonsibility on CCWG-Accountability for a solution would be a major mistake, as the Board has stated it will have the final say on any reforms proposed.

  Avri Doria:we are arguing about the solutions, not the principle.

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:I also see this "principle" as an important possibility to pull the emergency brake just in case. This is part of the existing contract

  matthew shears:surely at the end of the day we would not want to the MRT to be hamstrung by not having the separability option

  Seun Ojedeji:@Amr i think the principle has just become complex because we building a proposal around seperability

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:+1 Wolf-Ulrich

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Avri, I agree.  The solution to separability in the current proposal is clear.  I have not seen another clear solution proposed.

  Avri Doria:but in this discussion we are supposed to be focusing on the principle itself.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I agree with Brenden.

  Milton:Agree with Bertrand that the key is the criteria for separability

  Seun Ojedeji:I agree with Brenden

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Agree with @Brenden and @Chuck.  Also, responsibility for IANA accountability rests with this group, not the CCWG.

  Seun Ojedeji:*Bertrand*

  Alan Greenberg:If it was not taken as a given that a contract is the ONLLY way to achieve it, that agreement would be far easier. Companies divest themselves of divisions, both voluntarily and by order all the time. No contract, but serparability.

  Milton:But Bertrand, why is it so important to ensure that ICANN is the presumed provider?

  Amr Elsadr:Also agree with Brenden. I can't think of a rationale reason why we should submit a proposal here based on the belief that the board will approve all accoutability recommendations made by the CCWG. Furthermore, I can't think of a stronger accountability mechanism the CCWG can propose that is stronger than seprability of IANA.

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At Large):sorry for my delay

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:The principles do not mention how separability might be achieved

  Seun Ojedeji:The unfortunate thing is that we have not made attempt to focus on how to ensure acountability internally instead of expending our resources on upholding seperability

  Alan Greenberg:I strongly support what Bertrand is saying.

  Milton:Seun: that is the job of CCWG-Accountbiliy

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:@Martin: and that's good so. this is an operational issue

  Brenden Kuerbis:Alan I believe several has stated on list about the need to further detail the conditions and process by which the MRT would consider separability.

  Staffan:Agree: there isn't really disagreement on the principle per se? Implementation is may the conflict, so lets move on to that...

  Desiree Miloshevic:I would approve that statement too

  Milton:so an alternative method of separability must be proposed.

  Milton:I frankly don't think you get separability without a contract, or at minimum an MoU

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Trouble with mute

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:milton, I do not want to ensure it, I start from the assumption that this organization was created for that purpose and that the goal is make sure that it continues to do it with the proper guarantees on an ONGOING basis

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):fixed

  Seun Ojedeji:@Milton i think that is the problem as we attempt to differentiate accountability from our task; this CWG  is all about accountability just that its in relation to IANA so we it will be within scope to identify that requirements/factors that will reflect our principles. Just that we are only looking externally and not looking internally

  matthew shears:We should leave it to the MRT when constituted to decide as to how and when seaparbility should be used - but it should be there as an option.

  Alan Greenberg:Why are we now debating the implementation????

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:+1 Matthew; and to my understanding this doesn't presume a contract

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Matthew:  I'd rather MRT have quite clear instructions on when they can use power

  Alan Greenberg:After closing the queue?

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:matthew, I think it should not be entirely left to an MRT to define the criteria. some of it shoulld at least be prefigured to a significant extent by this group. +1 with Martin

  matthew shears:yes agree with some criteria

  Seun Ojedeji:no problem i will write it here

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@matthew: this is a point of potential consensus: defining some criteria beforehand. could this be checked witht he group?

  Milton:+1 to Mrtin's comment, too

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Alan -- because any proposal that is made has to be implementable.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:very clear criteria, Matthew.  No one should be able to write their rules for pressing the nuclear button

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:+1 Martin

  matthew shears:@ Martin - agree

  Brenden Kuerbis:Agree with Martin's comment too, need clear "rules"

  Seun Ojedeji:Just to mention that its not appropriate for Greg to say we have not proposed a way....ALAC has proposed elements that needs to be looked into to achieve our goal so its not appropriate to rule out the proposal...we should discuss it together and find a solution. We don't have any solution right now...not even the current CWG proposal

  Milton:Alan, what is the separability mechanism in your alt proposal?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Seun -- What's the way?  You have proposed that we can go to the opposite shore, without telling us how we will get there.

  matthew shears:We all want the CCWG accountability to do something effective - that does not preclude independent oversight of the IANA and the thrust of the current IANA proposal

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Agreed Matthew

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Alan, but what's the trigger?

  Alan Greenberg:@avri. That is NOT what is being proposed. We are talking about mandatory acct.

  Mark Carvell - GAC (UK Govt):Divesting an activity from a multi-constituency, bottom-up, global entity seesm very challenging in process and constitutional terms - and likely to be very protracted.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Greg i really don't understand it when you say we have not said how. What i will agree is that we have not fleshed out details (lots of content like the CWG proposal)

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):The trigger and mechanism that causes the divestiture.

  Alan Greenberg:Membership is one such trigger.

  Milton:Carvell: +1

  Avri Doria:But the Board has complete control of the by-laws and can unchange any change.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Avri -  I agree that counting on bylaws and internal ICANN procedures is not enought

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Mark, when you say "multi-constituency, bottom-up, global entity", are you talking about the MRT?

  Seun Ojedeji:Sorry about that thanks

  Avri Doria:ICANN legal has been superbly talented at creating an unassialble board.

  Seun Ojedeji:NO MRT with a different role

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):+1 Avri

  Seun Ojedeji:infact i think we will rename our MRT to something else

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I disagree that bylaws cannot be made to work:  the Board should not have any right to change certain bylaws

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Martin

  Milton:Martin Boyle: are you familiar with California Nonprofit public benefit law?

  Amr Elsadr:@Martin: Currently, the board can change any by-laws with a 2/3 of the board vote. I somehow doubt the board would vote to change the by-laws to limit their ability to change them again.

  maarten Simon, SIDN:we should have legal advise if the bylaw solution is possible. makes no sense to discuss it as long that's not clear.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:So jurisdiction is the problem?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:In this case, ICANN would never be accountable - for IANA or for anything else...?

  Milton:oh boy, a new supporting organization

  maarten Simon, SIDN:@amr not the whole of the bylaws only the specific IANA ones that we add

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):So, to reduce complexity, you are replacing one organization (Contract Co.) with 2 organizations?

  Milton:Martin, if you keep certain things internal to the corporation, you are limited by Cal. law. If it is external, you are not

  Avri Doria:how is an MOU differnet from a contract in this context?

  Seun Ojedeji:Milton hang-on i should note that we are reviewing this structure...some of those structures we are also thinking will not be necessary

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Martin - breach of bylaws  - how do you enforce consequences with the  current ICANN board struckture ?

  Milton:so much for the complexity argument, I get dizzy just looking at this

  Amr Elsadr:Is a new SO with by-laws changes, board representation, NomCom membership, travel support and other funding count as a less complex solution?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Ah, now we have to organize the I* organizations.  No small task....

  Mark Carvell - GAC (UK Govt):@Bertand; the a;lternative to the Contractco within the envisaged ICANN structure envisaged by ALAC: which I consider has strengths and merits  by the way!

  Alan Greenberg:The CORE issue is looking for a proposal that can work and that does not nead the external contracting entity. The rest is flexible.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Alan, that I agree with.

  Amr Elsadr:@Alan: + less complex than the contracting co. model too, right?

  Milton:Amr, yes a new SO funded by ICANN will be "less costly" <cough>

  Sivasubramanian M:Though it looks complicated, the ALAC WIP addresses some of the complications in the existing proposal and some gaps as well

  Avri Doria:and the BNRO is not the RIRs, for that they have CRISP

  Avri Doria:nor BNRO but NRO

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:The Stakeholder Groups will be able to decide on the IANA Supporting Organisation. They have direct appointment capability.

  Avri Doria:so instead of seperating the contract out, we seperate the SO out.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Alan: I hope I did NOT say we were going to take the GNSO nor ccNSO out.

  Avri Doria:and as far as can tell an Mou is a Contract by another name.

  Milton:If the names SO were really separated out from ICANN, and ICANN was ONLY IANA, this would be a very different conversation

  Avri Doria:but going to place the IANA SO on the outside?

  Avri Doria:the complexity of this solution is delicious.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Avri, true -- at least an MoU that is binding on the parties.

  Brenden Kuerbis:And if you have clearity around who are the parties

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:A 2-tier SO/ Partly in, partly out. The inside part is directly connected to the GNSO & ccNSO and gives them the ability to feed into the external one

  Alan Greenberg:@Avri, we were using thew "SO" in ISO in the way ICANN does today. Internal. The NRO is external and we mirrored that in the IRO.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:aren't we confusing the SOs and the stakeholder groups? The gNSO is the poicy body. What I think ALAC is exploring is leveraging the stakeholder groups to form some structure for the iANA aspect. But maybe I misunderstood.

  Milton:Olivier: highly simplified, ;-)

  Avri Doria:Olivier, but there is an mou between them and ICANN?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:when I mean GNSO, I mean GNSO Stakeholder groups of course

  matthew shears:in this model to whom is the IANA functions oeprator accountable?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:the link between ICANN & IANA Resource org would be the same as the one between ICANN & ASO NRO

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:the damoclès sword is to cut the link between ISO & IRO - the nuclear scenario

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Also, when Seun says "internal to ICANN", we need to distinguish between ICANN the corporation and ICANN the community.

  Amr Elsadr:This seems like an awful lot of work just to keep IANA internal to ICANN, with a possiblity of future divestiture and creation of a contracting co. anyway!!

  maarten Simon, SIDN:@avri: I guess the mou will be bylaw based, so it will be internal

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I think this proves that any proposal to solve these issues is going to be at least as complex as teh current proposal.

  matthew shears:+ 1 Amr

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Maarten, then it is not an MoU, except in name

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:awful lot of work? Create ISO. Create IRO. Done.

  maarten Simon, SIDN:@greg: fullly agree but it still has a legal effect

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I wish there was an "elegant" solution that avoided the complexities of all of the current proposals.  But we haven't found it.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Olivier -- then same with Contract Co.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Maarten, I don't understand what bylaw-based MoU is.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Or how it would have a "legal effect."

  Milton:Maarten, if our only professional lawyer doesn't understand what a bylaw-based MoU is (and I don't either) your idea is in trouble

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:the beginniing of the chat seems to have disappeared on my side, is that normal ?

  Sivasubramanian M:without contractCo. Or a ContractCo without. the Co in it

  Avri Doria:doing and RFP4 test on it is a good idea.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Greg: the problem is that creating a Contract Co. means we need to create a new accountability framework - but creating ISO & IRO would can make use of the ICANN accountability process as a starting point

  Marika Konings:@Bertrand - not sure why it has disappeared (same here), but we have captured it and will circulate it after the meeting.

  Milton:Olivier: only AFTER the CCWG-Accountability completely changes the ICANN accountability framework i n ways we can'[t predict

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:thanks Marika

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I think the chat has a capacity limit.  And we broke it.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Milton: we just cannot admit failure on the Accountability Track. We need to make this the focus and make sure the Accountability group delivers and is implemented

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Maarten  - aren`t we talking about a discipline effect at the most ...not legal

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I am a firm supporter of a very strong accountability track.

  Mark Carvell - GAC (UK Govt):Yes, support the RFP4 as next step for this.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):IANA accountability is our track.

  Amr Elsadr:@Olivier: How about create Contracting co, and done. ;-)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Amr: create contract co. and then answer all the questions when it gets sued?

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Olivier @Milton our task in this cwg is all on accountability (IANA names related) so if we still think cwg on accountability will be slow then we should   face our own part s

  Seun Ojedeji:lost audio

  Grace Abuhamad:ok dialing out to you again Seun

  Robert Guerra:can we also see what some of the public comments say

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Milton - I don't think it is fair to suggest that the ALAC has hijacted our work.  If we expect to get broad community support  for  a final solution, we need to thoroughly  investigate all  options.

  Milton:So Chuck, can I come up with an alternaative proposal too?

  Staffan:We should be able to discuss also other proposals

  matthew shears:this shold be considered along with other prpoals - no doubt there wil be some - once the consultation period is over.

  Avri Doria:as i say i am fully sketical of this alternate, but ALAC is a bit more than 5 people.  It is an AC.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Sure Milton as long as it is constructive.

  Alan Greenberg:@Lise. Yes - External contracting entity is the core of the difference.

  Robert Guerra:let's also try to do a test of how lightweight different proposals are

  Milton:Avri, if NCSG comes up with its own proposal...?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I agree:  we should not be shutting off discussion

  Robert Guerra:and financial / cost implications

  Avri Doria:Milton, we have on occasion done just that.

  Milton:Martin, no one is proposing to shut off discussion

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:That way we won't have any way of getting to a consensus

  Seun Ojedeji:audio back

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Sorry, misunderstood you comment, Milton

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):That is fine Milton. The RySG will probably be proposing a variation of the CWG proposal.  I think it will be more of a refinement than a new proposal though.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Good point OCL re the CO  comment status...

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I have no problem giving the ALAC proposal due consideration.

  Milton:I am all for consensus, and I am all for discussing options and variations. I just think we need to focus on proposals that can actually get consensus

  Robert Guerra:if ALAC proposal wants to go down via rfp4 analysis, please try and use 3 workstreams mentioned in Tuesday's call

  Milton:Chuck: refinements are what we need now, not completely new proposals

  Milton:We might find that public comments suggest new weaknesses or problems in our main proposal that need to  be addressed

  Seun Ojedeji:please note that if ALAC proposal wants to be reviewed i will suggest its based on this:

  matthew shears:+ 1 robert we have worked on a main proposal and we chould consider this laternative along with others when submittred

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Surely @Milton the existence of the ALAC proosal indicate  that ALAC as a CO might very well *not* join in consensus with the Contract Co based aproach ?

  Amr Elsadr:@Seun: I don't think that the alternative proposal is a refinement of the standing proposal. As Malcolm said at the beginning of the call, the CWG's current proposal is based on teh seprability principle. What we're looking at is a new proposal based on a principle that is conflicting with the current one.

  Avri Doria:i see this as an act of due dilligence.

  Milton:I like that expression: "an old hand" ;-)

  Brenden Kuerbis:Agree with Amr

  Milton:I am an old hand at ICANN

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):+1 @Avri

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I would say that the current proposal has an implementable solution to the separability principle, while the ALAC proposal does not (at least not yet).

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):The public comments will tell us how much consensus we have on the CWG proposal.

  Milton:Cheryl: definitely. If this exercise helps bring ALAC into the consensus I would support it.

  Robert Guerra:hopeful thT comments will be comprehensive as it will help guide us

  Avri Doria:Amr, I think the the ALAC alternate does have to show how it fufills the sperabilty principle.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Very useful meeting Lise.  Thanks.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye

  Seun Ojedeji:thanks

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Thanks all

  Avri Doria:thanks. until the next call.

  Seun Ojedeji:bye bye

  matthew shears:thanks!

  Bart Boswinkel:Bye all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:thanks Lise, all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Night Lis  Bye

  Sivasubramanian M:bye

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Bye

  Allan MacGillivray:Very, very good discussion

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:bye bye

  Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. God jul.

  Fatima Cambronero:thanks all, bye

  Staffan:thank You Lise, Bye

  Lise Fuhr:Bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye all

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Good bye all.


  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:bye all

  Keith ccNSO:Thanks and bye

  • No labels