IANA CWG Meeting #18 (15 January)

---

Agenda

1. Welcome & Roll Call

2. Status Updates from RFP subgroups

3. Relationship with CCWG-Accountability

    a. Review Flowchart

    b. Inputs for Frankfurt 

4. Looking Ahead & Timeline

    a. Key Dependencies

    b. Legal Advice

    c. Timeline 

5. Review of Action Items

6. AOB

Notes 15/1: 

Robert on phone line only

Chairs' Statement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-12-en

 

RFP3 presented by Greg

• Work this past week was taken over by work weekend. Notes the creation if RFP3B sub team. 
• Most activity has been on list. Also a data-mining project to find nuggets from previous calls that can help in futhering the RFP3 draft work (Bernie is staff support on this)

RFP3B presentated by Allan

• First call yesterday -- good attendance 
• Suggestion to go back at look at the functions we are trying to replicate, so that will be focus of next call

RFP4 presented by Robert

• Did not have a meeting this week, so are at same status as last week. 
• Siva circulate a document for which we are still awaiting feedback. Siva's document is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QVC12Q-NuB35pyaBirUDF85DBR_oFHkEYC5vbWu04go/edit?usp=sharing

RFP5 presented by Cheryl

• Also no meeting last week, but have a draft in Wiki and able to contribute some early work
• Draft page here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG-RFP5+-+Draft

Relationship with CCWG-Accountability

Please take a look at the flowchart to see the conditionalities

Inputs for Frankfurt (initial draft by Alan) -- there is some urgency because the CCWG is meeting on Monday and Tuesday. 

The two streams of work (CWG and CCWG) are interrelated but need to be decoupled in some way. The timelines are not in sync, which is why there is a need for conditionality and coordination. 

For a draft list of inputs, please see Alan's email on list. 

Chuck Gomes: There are some items for which we don't need input from the CCWG-Accountability. For example: 

#2 Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests --> this is in "our court"

 

Internal to ICANN Model Requirements

Milton Mueller: Hard to know what actions you will need when you remove separability 

Jonathan Robinson: When the transition occurs,IANA function must remain operational. Must also replace NTIA's role in oversight

Avri Doria: The list may actually be more complex, but not sure how to show/capture that yet 

Paul Kane: any decision made by the ICANN Board should be subject to appeal (also endorsed Jonathan's and Chuck's earlier statements)

1. gTLDS

2. ccTLDs

    a. contractual agreement

    b. no contractual agreement

Action: Avri & Chuck volunteer to work on Alan's document

Action: Grace to assist editors with capturing comments made on today's call in document

 

Looking Ahead & Timeline

A. Key Dependencies

• one of them is relationship with CCWG-Accountability (Jonathan will discuss)
• legal advice (will be discussed under B)
• chartering organizations 

--> No new key dependencies

• Will need legal advice on what we can and cannot do (under the current ICANN structure)
• The details of the way forward 

B. Legal Advice

• Take a look at the draft and the thread on the list 
• Had conversation with Sam Eisner from ICANN Legal. She assisted in refining the questions. 
• Will receive outside counsel and, even through ICANN will pay, the direction and advice is provided to the client (the CWG).
• Will be an iterative process -- more detailed legal questions can be added as we get them
• ICANN has a procurement process so if we used a firm that had never worked with ICANN before, then we would need to go through that. 
• --> This is a dependency as well, so will need to consider "Legal A (no procurement)" and "Legal B (procurement)"

Action: Review Legal document and comment as soon possible 

 

C. Timeline

Chairs had dialogue with ICG Chairs. Indicated that CWG needs more time. ICG Chairs understand that but would like a new timeline proposal. 

We have started to review a timeline, keeping in ind the dependencies, and will propose this on Thursday next week. 

Would be useful to get an update to the draft by Singapore (to help with discussions)

Action: Chairs to present revised timeline on next call.

Action: all should start to think about questions for which we'd like to have feedback in Singapore (communities can discuss within their own meetings)

 

5. Review of Action Items

Action: Avri volunteers to work on Alan's document

Action: Grace to assist editors with capturing comments made on today's call in document

Action: Review Legal document and comment as soon possible 

Action: Chairs to present revised timeline on next call.

Action: all should start to think about questions for which we'd like to have feedback in Singapore (communities can discuss within their own meetings)

 

6. AOB

Please complete your SOIs. Will send reminders to those who have not completed them.

Transcript 

Transcript CWG IANA #18 Jan 15.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #18 Jan 15.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8g6ryyo90t/

The audio recording is available here:  https://icann.box.com/shared/static/rs4lmhmq63vg3oivs0bcw5rcuz6rs3kw.mp3

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer:Welcome to the CWG IANA #18 conference call on 15 January at 14:00 UTC.

  Gary Hunt UK Govt.:Greetings all!

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:good morning from this side of the paradise :)

  Lise Fuhr:Good afternoon from rainy DK

  Staffan Jonson:Hello all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello all

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Good afternoon from rainy and stormy Amsterdam

  Allan MacGillivray:Good morning/afternoon/evening one and all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:What is this rain you speak of.? (as I sit here at -30

  Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone

  Sivasubramanian M:Is it still open to nominate legal experts for the Expert Group, please?

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Is someone eating into their mic?

  Fatima Cambronero:hello everyone

  Avri Doria:sounds tasty whatever it is.  lip smacking good.

  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:hi everyone

  Seun Ojedeji:Hello everyone

  Seun Ojedeji:good day to you from Nigeria

  Matthew Shears:hello

  wolfgang:Hello and good day to everyone

  Sivasubramanian M:Hello Wolfgang

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Greg & Allan:  Any estimate regarding how long it will take your subgroups to finish their work excluding legal advice?

  Allan MacGillivray:@Chuck - from my perspective, it is too early to estimate how long RFP3b will take.

  Avri Doria:Allan if RFP3b were to concentrate on the alternative proposals that were alreayd formed instead of using the opportunity to start all the work from scratch it might help with the scheedule.  Reboiling the ociean takes a long time.

  Avri Doria:How can we exclude their need for legal as the question about a binding change on the bylaws is a cricial part of any solution they offer.

  Greg Shatan:Cube root of n, where n is equalt (number of hours spent by Chuck on ICANN matters multiplied by the budget line item for IANA in the ICANN budget)

  Allan MacGillivray:@Avri - that is the precisely the appraoch that I have suggested to the group, but we have not yet reached agreement on this.

  Greg Shatan:*equal to*

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Avri:  We can't really exclude legal advice for 3 or 3b but they have no control over how long that will take so I was just being aware of that fact.

  Greg Shatan:Seriously, I will come up with an answer but that will require some further re-exam not fully done after this weekend (which was followed by the NCPH Intersessional).

  Seun Ojedeji:well i think going back from sratch (in at least MRT and contract co) makes sense to me.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Greg: :)

  Avri Doria:See what i mean we need legal advise on this broader issue.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:As a first step I suggest to limit the legal exploration to California law -  that is, solution with the ICANN struckture were it is established today

  Avri Doria:we need someone to tell us with some degree of external authority what is possible and what isn't

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Agree Avri.

  Matthew Shears:Agree need to build on what we have done

  Seun Ojedeji:Atually i am also interested in such legal advice proposed by Avri...and i don't see why anyone would refuse/reject that. However i presume it may not help asking now since the legal person would want to ask other scenario based questions which rfp3b does not have ready yet

  Jonathan Robinson:Hello all

  Seun Ojedeji:@Matthew i am not sure building on what has been done is the right way....because what is being proposed is different from what has been done. So maybe removing (without discussing) items from what we have done and then start building on the rest may help

  Grace Abuhamad:You have scroll control -- apologies for the delay in uploading

  Seun Ojedeji:Contract co and MRT are 2 items that could be removed and then rfp3b can continue building on CSC/IAP

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I think we should view the legal advice process as an iterative one.  At the beginning we need to provide enough context to identify the legal experts and start the interaction.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):More detailed legal questions can be added as we get them.

  Avri Doria:seems like they should be unless we are going for second opions.

  Avri Doria:and there may be timing difference between having sets of question ready, but perhaps that can be dealt with in the CCWG weekend upcoming

  Avri Doria:it may be mythology, but many indetify Jones Day as attached to ICANN

  Milton Mueller:Mythology? Jones Day is ICANN's counsel

  Avri Doria:i would expect that ICANN the corporation would probably get their own advise on our question from them in any case.

  Milton Mueller:Not what I would call "independent"

  Greg Shatan:I can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that it will not be Jones Day.

  Sivasubramanian M:Legal Advise for the Working Group requires to be decided independantly. The procurement process for any choice that the WG makes, limits the ability of the group to find and persuade an independant legal counsel.

  Avri Doria:Milton, appearance is enough, i did not want to get into a discussion of whether they were or not.  The degree of identification is hotly argued.  But the widespread beleif is sufficnt to remove them from consideration at this point.

  Greg Shatan:BTW, Jones Day is a fine fand highly respected firm and one I have dealt with a number of times over the years.

  Matthew Shears:@ Seun - do not agree that we at a point where anything should be removed

  Sivasubramanian M:This or any other working group might require a few hours or a few days of advise,  this would be a relatively uninteresting exercise for an expert counsel of some stature,  who might not like to go through an apply-for-the-job kind of process

  Greg Shatan:Siva, speaking from experience (including 28 years as outside counsel), I wouldn't worry about that.

  Milton Mueller:Jones Day is indeed highly respected in various areas, esp antitrust. That is why ICANN hires them ;-)

  Sivasubramanian M:( Not challenging Jones Day or internal advise here, but only pointing out the limitations of this clause that requires the recruitment process

  Sivasubramanian M:)

  Greg Shatan:We can procure anyone -- it just needs to go through the process.  No limitations.

  Matthew Shears:On this flow chart - doesn the ICG submit the proposal directly to NTIA?

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:The term "conditional" accountability should be thoroughly explained when the chart is shared with other groups

  Milton Mueller:Agree with Wolf-U. I am not sure I know what it means

  Avri Doria:i have not had a chance to read Alan's offering.  he did not take me up on the offer of help.

  Avri Doria:Several of us will be in Frnakfurt

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed we will

  Avri Doria:i agree with having a doc, not arguing about that.

  Avri Doria:a doc with some sort of mandate would be a good thing

  Matthew Shears:will the accountbaility recommendations be put to he Board before or after the ICG submits its proposal to NTIA in June/July?

  Grace Abuhamad:@Matthew -- I think that is their target, but, as you know, they are still developing their timeline

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:I understand WS-1 recs shall be input to the ICG submission

  Avri Doria:CCWG Stream 1 seems essential

  Robin Gross:If ICANN hires the law firm, then it is the client and all duties are owed to the corporation - not this group.  This group needs to hire the law firm for the independent legal advice to in fact be independent.

  Greg Shatan:@Wolf-Ulrich, do you mean that you think the CCWG will submit WS-1 directly to the ICG?   I did not think that  was the case.

  Donna Austin, RySG:All, I have to drop this call to join another. Have a good day.

  Lise Fuhr:Bye Donna

  Jonathan Robinson:@Chuck - is your point about c & gTLDs needing recourse to appeal a delegation decision under specific circumstances?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye donna

  Matthew Shears:assuming that the ICG proposal goes out for review March - May the CCWG Accountbaility has some time to "catch up" - maybe?

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:@Greg, yes I know they do not. But whoever decides that (CWG?) the WS1 recs shall be part of the submission to the NTIA. The question is when they will be provided

  Greg Shatan:@Wolt-Ulrich -- I believe they will need to come through us.  "When" they will have something is indeed a key question.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Greg @Wolf-Ulrich -- I think the CCWG had a draft timeline that looked at a June submission for WS1. I will check their Wiki

  Grace Abuhamad:Here is the timeline draft that was on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51413848/CCWG_Accountability_Timeline_v0.3.pdf?api=v2

  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Thanks Grace

  Greg Shatan:@Robin, I don't believe that's correct.  Under Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7, comment 13: [13] A lawyer may be paid from a source other than the client, including a co-client, if the client is informed of that fact and consents and the arrangement does not compromise the lawyer's duty of loyalty or independent judgment to the client. See Rule 1.8(f). If acceptance of the payment from any other source presents a significant risk that the lawyer's representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer's own interest in accommodating the person paying the lawyer's fee or by the lawyer's responsibilities to a payer who is also a co-client, then the lawyer must comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) before accepting the representation, including determining whether the conflict is consentable and, if so, that the client has adequate information about the material risks of the representation.

  Alan Greenberg:I beleive that all internal model proposals *DO* have a separability option.

  Brenden Kuerbis:Internal options eliminate periodic renewal

  Guru Acharya:Not all. Steve's internal model has no separability.

  Allan MacGillivray:On removal of directors, I just checked the auDA proposal and could find no reference to removing directors.

  Paul Kane:Milton +1

  Paul Kane:I don't think removal of ICANN directors is in scope

  Greg Shatan:While it's my understanding that California has not adopted the MCRP, I believe that California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-310(F) is similar in effect: (F) A member shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:(1) There is no interference with the member's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and(2) Information relating to representation of the client is protected as required by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e); and(3) The member obtains the client's informed written consent, provided that no disclosure or consent is required if:(a) such nondisclosure is otherwise authorized by law; or(b) the member is rendering legal services on behalf of any public agency which provides legal services to other public agencies or the public.

  Matthew Shears:+ 1 Milton and Chuck

  Avri Doria:I (re-) volunteer.  will focus on this today and tomorrow.

  Paul Kane:The deadline NEEDS to be extended by MONTHS - this "rush" is not appropriate nor best serves the global community

  Avri Doria:re working with Alan  I suggest we put the list in a Drive doc and open in in suggest more with a few editors.

  Avri Doria:... suggest mode ...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree @jonathan

  Avri Doria:i volunteer to be an editor

  Milton Mueller:Jonathan and Alan: The promise that an internal solution can deliver separability is, at this point, just that: a promise.

  Milton Mueller:I suspect once you start developing a proposal we will see how difficult it will be to deliber on that promise

  Alan Greenberg:@Milton. No a promise. It is one of the mandatory accountability issues that MUST be there prior to transfer (presuming the CWG agrees to that).

  Matthew Shears:do we need to look at the CCWG workstream 1 proposals  and suggest which ones might be necessary or desirable from this WG's perspective?

  Jonathan Robinson:@Matthew - good suggestion

  Carolina Aguerre:yes

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I will help as well.

  Alan Greenberg:Chick, how is #4 different from what you are suggesting?  Just trying to get clarity.

  Alan Greenberg:Chick=Chuck.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Alan - Probably not different.  That is what I said in my email response to you, as long as we underestand that it might not relate directely to an IANA action.

  Milton Mueller:Alan, saying that something is required for accountability does not mean it can actually be delivered within the framework of an internal solution

  Milton Mueller:But by all means, give it a try....

  Avri Doria:Milton and that is where some of the issues fold back to the legal advice.

  Alan Greenberg:@Chuck, that is what I understood and thus said it is a process that needs to happen PRIOR to the change request going to IANA.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Alan: I don't know that we need to preclude it happening after delegation but it would be messier then.  That is something that would need to be defined.

  Matthew Shears:I think that we should set aside time for F2F at Singapore - it may take the F2F time to bring us to agreement

  Milton Mueller:Agree, Matthew. F2F in Singapore is a good idea

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:F2F Singapore - I agree

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:Re: Singapore - GAC will discuss transition (and accountability) in all morning session on Sunday 8th

  Seun Ojedeji:well not everyone planned to be in Singapore but it will be helpful if that decision is made soon enough

  Staffan Jonson:Excellent with a (revised/updated) proposal

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:Updated draft will be VERY useful for GAC session - ideally available a few days before

  Alan Greenberg:adding a f2f in the agenda at this point will be VERY difficult. It is close to frozen (and very packed)

  Avri Doria:Chuck also volunteered

  Jonathan Robinson:A meeting of this CWG is planned for during the Singapore meeting.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Avri -- noted. thank you

  Matthew Shears:@ Jonathan - If there is a way of finding additional time in Singapore for the CWG that would be good - I suspect that we will need it

  Jonathan Robinson:Revised draft/s punctuated with key questions

  Avri Doria:In terms of time lines, there need to goals for the RFP3b.  It can't be an opne schedule that it will happen when it happens.  At this point alternate solutions have been put forward for a while, we need to get to specificity as qquickly as possiuble.

  Steve Crocker:I need to leave a bit early.  Thanks, everyone.

  Lise Fuhr:Thanks Steve

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Buy

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:thanks all

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):bye

  Carolina Aguerre:Thank you Lise and All, bye

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Thanks Lise, all

  Matthew Shears:thanks!

  Fatima Cambronero:thanks all, bye

  Staffan Jonson:Bye all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:bye

  Robin Gross:bye

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:thanks - bye

  Mary Uduma:Thanks and Bye All

  Brenden Kuerbis:bye all, thx

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Bye all

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:bye all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye