Members:  Lisa Fuhr, Jonathan Robinson, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Fatima Cambronero, Eduardo Diaz, Erick Iriarte, Staffan Jonson, Elise Lindeberg, Wanawit Ahkuputra, Greg Shatan, Graeme Bunton, Avri Doria, Donna Austin, Robert Guerra, Seun Ojedeji, Jaap Akkerhuis

ParticipantsBrenden Kuerbis, Chuck Gomes, Jiankang Yao, Stephanie Duchesneau, Martin Boyle, Guru Acharya, Alan Greenberg, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Bertrand de La Chapelle, Steve Crocker, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Milton Mueller, Yasuichi Kitamura, Suzanne Woolf, Tomohiro Fujisaki, Allan MacGillivray, Suzanne Woolf, Maarten Simon, Mary Uduma, Peter Van Roste

Staff:  Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings, Theresa Swinehart, Adam Peake


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

Draft Agenda

1. Welcome & Roll Call

2. Status Updates from RFP subgroups

3. Work in Progress

a. Summary & Analysis of Public Comments 

b. Surveys

4. Looking Ahead

a. Work weekend; schedule, expectations, commitments

b. 12 Jan onward

5. Review of Action Items

6. AOB


Notes 8/1: 

1. Welcome & Roll Call

  • Aiming to keep call to 1 hour to allow for additional time for members & participants to respond to the surveys that have been distributed
  • On audio only:  Sibasubramanian Muthusamy
  • Ongoing communications with Chairs of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability - notion that there may be conditionality with work stream 1 items. 


2. Status Updates from RFP subgroups

  • RFP3: Group reviewed survey during its last meeting which has now been distributed for completion. Intended to discuss CSC documents but ran out of time.
  • RFP4: Agreed to a number of approaches and methodology. Waiting for RFP3 to finalize its proposal and as such on hold.
  • RFP5: Call yesterday - wiki page with skeleton outline has been prepared, but awaiting outcome of other groups to be able to complete its work. 


3. Work in Progress

a. Summary & Analysis of Public Comments 

  • Overview provided by Bernie based on the document circulated earlier this week. Document has been updated with some of the responses that were missing. However, results did not significantly change. Major agreement level was defined as 75%+ and highligted in yellow. Pink color indicates issue with weighting. Also analysed comments based on different types of organizations that responded. 

  • How is the CWG going to consider the alternative proposals that have been suggested in the public comments (e.g. RySG, Google)? CWG to discuss this under agenda item 4. Should two track approach be considered - one group developing further details on internal to ICANN proposal while other group further develops / defines CWG proposal - but how would these reconciled? All variations proposed should be considered in light of the CWG proposal as well as the alternative proposal provided by ALAC. Use input from comments to make proposals better. By what method do we get broad support for one single proposal? Timing is also a challenge. 

b. Surveys

  • Surveys designed to move away from a particular solution but focus on the components. All encouraged to respond to the surveys (see also action items). 


4. Looking Ahead

a. Work weekend; schedule, expectations, commitments

    • Co-chairs, coordinators and support staff will be co-located to facilitate preparation for the meetings during the intensive working weekend. 
    • Survey will be a useful contributor to reviewing public comments. Suggestions for how to best / most effectively organize our work: In principle objective is that outcome of working weekend would feed into the development of final proposal during the course of next week, but very aware of the time pressures and different opinions that currently exists. More time may be needed / requested, but such a determination would only be made at the end of the intensive working weekend. For those that cannot participate, please share your views ahead of the meeting. How to manage the proposal giving the interlinkage with the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability - a status update might be helpful as a starting point. 
  • Schedule for work weekend:

Saturday 10 January

15:00 – 17:00

19:00 – 21:00

Sunday 11 January

13:00 – 15:00

17:00 – 19:00

b. 12 Jan onwards

  • If final proposal is significantly different from original proposal, is another public comment forum needed? If so, how will this affect the timeline?


5. Review of Action Items

  • Action: Everyone to complete the surveys that have been distributed (see - deadline 17:00 UTC on Friday, 9 January 2015 and - deadline 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January).
  • Action: RFP3 sub-group to review CSC documentation (structural analysis) and provide input.
  • Action: For those that are not able to participate in the intensive working weekend, please share any comments / ideas / suggestions with the list ahead of the weekend
  • Action: Give consideration to a second workstream to further develop elements of the internal to ICANN solution
  • Action: Undertake qualitive analysis of public comments, time permitting
  • Action: Give consideration to second public comment period if final proposal is significantly different from original proposal

6. AOB



Transcript CWG IANA Jan 08.doc

Transcript CWG IANA Jan 08.pdf 


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented


Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer:  Welcome to the CWG IANA conference call on January 08 11:00 UTC.

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):Happy new year, all.

  Grace Abuhamad:Thanks Avri!

  Jonathan Robinson:Hello all.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hi all

  Jonathan Robinson:Two questions: Is audio enabled on AC? Please can Grace send me UK dial-in in any case?

  Peter Van Roste - ccTLDs:Hi Everyone, best wishes!

  Grace Abuhamad:Audio is enabled

  Grace Abuhamad:I'll get the UK dial-in now

  Jonathan Robinson:OK. PLease can we do a test

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:someone needs to go on mute - typing sound

  Jonathan Robinson:That's me! It's working!

  Grace Abuhamad:Works!

  Allan MacGillivray:Its working here.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Hi all, hi Jonathan

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:All works here, too

  Mary Uduma:Works. Hi Everyone

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Counting on everyone for some heated debates  - minus 31 here this AM

  Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone

  Allan MacGillivray:@Bernie - you had better translate that for Chuck

  staffan Jonson:Hi all

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):@Bernard, where is there?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Qu/bec city in Canada

  Jonathan Robinson:One minute and we'll get going

  Alan Greenberg:Only -27 C  here . but -37 with wind chill.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:That<s -24 F

  Alan Greenberg:I was told there was a heat wave in LA tho...

  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:Hello everyone

  Alan Greenberg:Nice thing is as we get to -40, it is same in both degrees

  Chuck Gomes:Getting into the 60's F in northern Calif.

  Greg Shatan:Good morning, afternoon and evening, all.

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):One hour is good so I can get lunch

  Fatima Cambronero:hello everyone

  Seun Ojedeji:Hi everyone

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:an hour is good!

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Jonathan: the ALAC WG on IANA Issues is having a conference call a few hours from now to discuss the surveys. I suspect that the ALAC-appointed members of the CWG will respond afterwards, of course before the deadline.

  Jonathan Robinson:@Olivier. Thank-you

  Greg Shatan:9 F in NYC (-12 C) but it feels like -9 (-23), so I am still thawing out.

  Erick Iriarte Ahon::) good morning :)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+18°C in Cannes. :-)

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Skeleton of a draft RFP5:

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Grace - do you know it the European Commission answer is included in the analysis of all responses ?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: results

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:sorry

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:no not yet - will be done today or tomorrow but will not change any of the results given the volume

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Thanks - there has been some problems with the posting on the CWG list

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Yes I saw the email and apologize for this

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:but no bad intention

  Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:Do we really ahev time for having alternative proposalas being discussed now???  15 Jan is just a round the corner...

  Milton Mueller:Alan, that is not true

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):I do not thing we have time for another group due to our timelines

  Milton Mueller:People said that Contract Co needed better definition

  Seun Ojedeji:the analysis is quite interesting :-)

  Milton Mueller:Very few comments rejected the idea of contractig outright

  Milton Mueller:Alan, look at the numbers: 4 comments said they were against it

  Milton Mueller:Contract Co

  staffan Jonson:Someone is breathing into his/her microphone. Please mute

  Milton Mueller:Donna: A number of ccTLDs also strongly opposed the internal solution

  Milton Mueller:LACTLD, InternetNZ, several others

  Chuck Gomes:In an analysis that the RySG team did we found seven (7) commenters who seemed to oppose Contract Co.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Milton--I don't discount those that opposed the internal solution, but this issue is important enough that we should not simply ignore alternative suggestions based on numbers.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Donna +1.  I'd agree with Chuck that shutting our ears to a significant number of concerns isn't going to give us a very robust proposal.  We are supposed to be looking to get to a general consensus

  Chuck Gomes:Who doesn't support the separability principle?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Please do not think that I do not think the quantitative analysis was helpful. On the contrary, I think the quantitative analysis was helpful - but it gives us an incomplete picture

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Milton - I agree, - this is about the core - seperability

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:separability ..:)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:this amalgamation of separability with external solution and no separability with an internal solution is of concern to me

  Milton Mueller:Olivier: I explicitly said that there was support, esp among ccTLDs for a mixed (separability with internal) approach

  Marika Konings:Please mute your microphones / phones when not speaking.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Milton: I am not criticising you. I agreed with most of what you said

  Milton Mueller:@Chuck: who doesn't support seperability? ICANN, Google and Andrew Sullivan

  staffan Jonson:Yes ccTLD:s are profoundly divided in several aspects, and yes, that is why two track is a good idea. However, that presupposes (more) time.

  Grace Abuhamad:apologies for the disruption. we are working on it

  Milton Mueller:someone's phone is ringing, impossible to hear Gre

  Milton Mueller:Greg

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:but more time means a better answer and show better the reality.

  Chuck Gomes:@ Milton: I will identify the ones we thought opposed it.

  Brenden Kuerbis:Maybe it would make sense to identify _why_ they opposed Contract Co. and debate the merits of those arguments?

  Milton Mueller:@Chuck: will be interested in seeing it,

  matthew shears:we do need to have a realistic assessment of whther we need more time - I assume that a decision on timing will be made after this weekend's marathon session?

  Chuck Gomes:In the RySG Analysis (which I am sure has lots of limitations) we found the following opposed Contract Co: ALAC, Google, ICANN Bd., ITIC, Kurt Pritz, BC, NIRA

  Milton Mueller:+1 Brenden - many did not oppose contract co per se but were concerned about details or implementation

  matthew shears:yes good idea Brenden

  Milton Mueller:@Chuck: opposition to Contract Co is not same as opposition to seperability

  Chuck Gomes:In the RySG analysis we didn't count those who expressed that more detail was needed for Contract Co.

  Chuck Gomes:Totally agree Milton.  I  am not aware of anyone who opposes Separability unless it is the Board.

  Alan Greenberg:Our real priority should REALLY be on minimizing risk and I just don't see that happening. Risk is not only about a post-design analysis, but in the premises at the start.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Should this CWG ask for more time to provide its response?

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 @Olivier but not without redefining what our goal and methodology to engaging is....otherwise we will still find ourselves at a deadlock

  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@chuck, as I said on the call, I think we can have some rough consensus on "separation should be possible if necessary" but not with we need to prepare for separation"

  Alan Greenberg:I am also TOTALLLY amazed that given the importance of this decision and the depth of the division, money and time was not found for another face-to-face meeting.

  Chuck Gomes:Agree Bertrand.

  Milton Mueller:Bertrand, your position does not have consensus among several major stakeholder groups. And the concept of "prepare for separation" is a bit slanted in formatulation. Institutionalzing the capacity to separate is not the same as preparing for it now

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):For the record: I'm very likely not available on Saturday

  Mary Uduma:+1 Alan.  I think we need another f2f  for this work

  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:Sorry, Milton, you are probably the less well placed to comment about "slanted forulation"

  Chuck Gomes:At a minimum I think we need to confirm that any mode for separation is viable whether that is Contract Co. some other vehicle or some combination.

  Milton Mueller:please avoid ad hominem arguments Bertrand

  Brenden Kuerbis:Yes, If "internalists" would provide a level of detail that allows the CWG to better understand how that approach can match what is provided by having a Contract Co. we could debate  the merits of each approach. A sub-group working on this is a sensible approach.

  Milton Mueller:that is what I've been saying

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Chuck +1

  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@Milton: framing this in terms of people are either "pro or against separability" and labelling anybody who is not comfortable with establishing a contract Co right now as being in the second category is wrong.

  Chuck Gomes:Are their volunteers to join a subgroup to work on the one major alternative solution?

  Milton Mueller:no one is doing that, Bert.

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 Bertrand

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Part of the problem I have is that I am not really convinced that the Contract Co is particularly well defined

  staffan Jonson:Work Methodolgy for the weekend: If output of work weekend is based on written responses (and not just by e-mail list inputs as Bertrand mentioned), based on Qualitative analysis and maybe an second parallel sub group I’m happy.

  Greg Shatan:In all fairness to Milton, that is not how he framed the streams when he spoke on the call today.  He recognized 3 streams not 2, with "internal+separability" as one of them.

  Milton Mueller:right.

  Seun Ojedeji:may i know if this pdf uploaded somewhere accessible?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Seun - spreadsheet

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:^

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:?

  Seun Ojedeji:okay Bernard

  Chuck Gomes:I don't think we ever agreed to another comment period but many of the commenters suggested that and I think Alan is  right that we will need one.

  Milton Mueller:i agree

  Avri Doria:well it is probably up to eht e chrtering orgss to decide if they need a comment period.

  Alan Greenberg:Regardless of a PC, the chartering orgs still must weigh in

  Avri Doria:i do not rember this group deciding on one.  but any of our orgs can do one.  just like the board does one on the stuff we send them/

  Chuck Gomes:If the first comment period was on a near fully vetted proposal, we might not need a 2nd comment period; but that was not the case.

  Avri Doria:and i agree we can decide to do one, if we wish.

  Alan Greenberg:Certainly if this was a PDP, a 2nd PC would be mandatory given the projected changes. BUt this is not a PDP.

  Steve Crocker:It would be useful to review who is invited to the weekend activities and via what means.  For example, for those who are in Washington, is physical attendance permitted or desired?

  Avri Doria:i have to drop off. apologies.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Steve i thought weekend activities is  on AC?

  Chuck Gomes:Agree with Milton.

  Chuck Gomes:Take the survey with her chair hat off.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Steve: work week-end is 4 x 2 hours of conference calls

  Grace Abuhamad:@Steve : Co-chairs, co-ordinators and support staff will be co-located to facilitate preparation for the meetings during the intensive working weekend.

  Milton Mueller:i have to drop off also.

  Milton Mueller:Appreciate your cncern with neutrality but I dont see how taking the survey privately affects your neutrality

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I would welcome the chairs to complete the surveys

  Milton Mueller:bye all

  Chuck Gomes:Thanks Jonathan and all.

  matthew shears:thanks!

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):bye, all

  Lars Erik Forsberg, GAC:Thanks !

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thanks bye

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:thanks and bye

  Fatima Cambronero:thanks, bye

  Seun Ojedeji:thanks bye

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye

  Brenden Kuerbis:thanks , bye all

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:thanks bye

  Peter Van Roste - ccTLDs:Bye all!

  Mary Uduma:Bye

  • No labels