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

Participants: Matthew Shears, Chuck Gomes, Wale Bakare, Milton Mueller, Suzanne Woolf, Allan MacGillivray, Mary Uduma, Yasuichi Kitamura, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Maarten Simon, Manal Ismail, Paul Szyndler, John Poole, Martin Boyle, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana, Philip Corwin, Mark Carvell, Keith Davidson

Staff:  Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings

Apologies:  Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Alan Greenberg; Jaap Akkerhuis

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

Notes 1/22

 1. Welcome & Roll Call

Audio-only: none

ICG recognizes that CWG work is complex, but it is critical that we produce a new and revised timetable

 2. Status Updates      

 RFP3 -- Greg Shatan

  • Completed structural analysis of CSC on call this week (Monday)
  • "Sticky point" was composition of CSC: some convergence on how you would structure something that was primarily registries but would have a multistakeholder component. 
  • Representative/Liaison from non-registry community that would have a formal role (could vote) on CSC and also link to MRT. 

RFP 3B -- Allan MacGillivray

  • One meeting to date. RFP 3B meeting this week is Friday at 14:00 UTC. 
  • auDA submitted alternative proposal 

RFP 4 -- Robert Guerra 

No update since last call

 RFP 5 (postponed until after ICANN52) 

 CCWG-Accountability -- Avri Doria

  • Started the meeting by asking Avri to discuss the note/issues that were sent to them. 
  • Started looking at which issues belonged in WS1 and WS2
  • 2nd day was more focused on WS1 -- there is a set of items that has been outlined (not yet final -- decision in progress)
  • Budget issues, for example, will be looked at, but the CWG may want to pursue specific aspects itself. 
  • Appeal is important but will be further discussed
  • Is there sufficient clarity? Yes, but need to keep channel open as the group's work progresses

3. Legal Brief 

  • Good part of document is educational (intended to provide update to attorney who may assist the group); the rest is a list of questions. 
  • Funded by ICANN
  • Need volunteers to form client committee to interact with lawyers (legal background is suggested). This committee will include Greg and co-Chairs.
  • Need to start identifying firms that could assist.
  • As part of our overall timeline, need to confirm the timing of the procurement process (if necessary)

4. Looking Ahead & Timeline

  • Pressing requirement to develop a new timeline (not only because of ICG request, but also for good management)
  • Revised version on Flowchart -- loop with CCWG to confirm that their WS1 proposal would meet requirements in CWG conditional proposal. Idea is to respect the role of chartering orgs and CCWG. Also will have feedback loop.

5. Plan for ICANN 52 (Singapore)

Webinars ahead of Singapore (ICANN 52)? (no objections)

Discussion Draft (areas of convergence, areas of divergence, and key questions to be answered)

        CWG-Stewardship Sessions Scheduled for ICANN 52

    • Working Meeting on Wednesday at 17:15 
    • Question & Answers Session on Thursday at 10:30 

Singapore Schedule:

 6. Review of Action Items

  • Avri: live action item to continue this work of refining list of issues, especially as work progresses in both groups. 
  • Chairs: ensure that the document is clear enough with the CCWG chairs
  • Greg: put out call for volunteers to join "client committee"
  • Greg: collect suggestions for counsel 
  • Chairs: ensure close link with CCWG on legal advice
  • Chairs: confirm timeline and process for selecting and engaging lawfirm as part of overall planning
  • Chairs: develop a timeline for review by 29 January (next meeting)
  • Grace: clarify session descriptions in ICANN52 schedule

7. AOB


Transcript CWG IANA 22 Jan.doc

Transcript CWG IANA 22 Jan.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here: 

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer:Good day everyone!  Welcome to the CWG IANA conference call on Janaury 22 @ 11:00 UTC.

  Keith ccnso:Hi Brenda, all

  Brenda Brewer:Hello Keith!

  Robert Guerra:hi all

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):¡Hola a todos!

  Sivasubramanian M:Hola Eduardo

  Mary Uduma:Hello everyone

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello

  Matthew Shears:hello!

  Allan MacGillivray:Bonjour le beau monde!

  Milton Mueller:Hello all. I am not hearing any sound

  Staffan Jonson:Hi all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:hi all

  Milton Mueller:yes

  Jonathan Robinson:Hello all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Milton we hear

  Suzanne Woolf:Lots of echo?

  Robert Guerra:hearing grace very faintly

  Lise Fuhr:fine sound

  Grace Abuhamad:no echo here

  Suzanne Woolf:ok better

  Robert Guerra:good sons for you.

  Robert Guerra:sound I mean. having issues with my microphone . so will type instead if can't fix problem

  Grace Abuhamad:We can also dial out to you @robert

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Hello, all.

  Robert Guerra:thanks.. ok for now. will let u know ..

  Matthew Shears:ther was also a suggestion that the single MS seat be the liaison

  Matthew Shears:as Greg said

  Robert Guerra:RFP4 - no update since last call

  Robert Guerra:this weeks meeting was postponed . will post update to list later today .

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Allan:  Thanks.

  Robert Guerra:will look for auDA doc as well

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:+1 Olivier:  we've already got that analysis

  Matthew Shears:we don't have the luxury of time to go back to basics

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:But when looking at ideas, we should look very carefully at functions first

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Matthew and Martin

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:yes Jonathan

  Robert Guerra:we need to see how we can take key points and see how we can proceed .

  Robert Guerra:there are many common elements that have been identified . options exist for several areas. good to present those to communities in Singapore , get feedback and see where broadest agreement exists

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Paul:  Thanks.  I look forward to reading auDA's revised proposal.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Good - keep the core of the model we have decided on :)

  Allan MacGillivray:@Milton - yes, we certainly very much waiting for the leagl advice.

  Matthew Shears:Agree Elise

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Elise - yes

  Avri Doria 2:yep, from my reading of the alternative, it requires understandin the reality of the sperability function the propose with the Guardina being able to recommend that the  separabilty function of guardian and ICANn hold the trust be fully workable.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Chuck i think auDA already sent something to the list

  Avri Doria 2:in other words can speratation be achieved if necessary

  Matthew Shears:agree with Avri that we will have to pursue transparency on  budget matters relating to the IANA function in this WG

  Milton Mueller:bear in mind that sepability as a "nuclear option" is very very different from periodic contracting that makes it part of a stable and  routine process

  Matthew Shears:Good progress was made in terms of identifying items in WS1

  Milton Mueller:good to hear that Avri

  Sivasubramanian M:Thank you Avri

  Staffan Jonson:Need to sign off for today. Thank you and bye

  Keith ccnso:Also have to sign off and head to another meeting - thanks all, useful updates...

  Sivasubramanian M:Could be more than a Lawyer to Law firm interaction

  Sivasubramanian M:The idea of a legal expert is for the WG (that does not have legal expertise) to have clarity on legal issues

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Lost sound for a moment.

  Avri Doria 2:useful to have lawyers on it, but do lawyers always make the best clients? definitely need some non-lawyers as well.

  Robert Guerra:does it trigger a procurement procss ,

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Not only what Oliver is saying but  Is there any cost  for this legal advice?

  Robert Guerra:?

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):And if so, who is paying for it?

  Robert Guerra:cost .. oh yeah. this won't come cheap . we need best advice we can get . cost likely cones from ICANN transition budget 

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I'm back.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:I fear that synchronising CWG and CCWG on this now will delay us. Let the CCWG look into our legal advice after we recived 

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:legal advice from the external firm

  Robert Guerra:+1 to lise suggestion on way forward

  Sivasubramanian M:I would like to volunteer to be on the client committee

  John Poole:@Greg-- I volunteer for "client committee"--I am a not a lawyer although I have a US legal education (Juris Doctor degree)

  Matthew Shears:I agree that we have a pressing need to get this advice and + 1 to Elise suggestion

  Seun Ojedeji:My question has just been asked; there is a need to know if ICANN will indeed make available resources for this council selection

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 Chuck. I am really concerned about the timeline for all of this. Critical timeline.

  Avri Doria 2:Lise, I just questioned whether they always made the best, not saying we could do this without them.  i think we need at least one legal-lay person to be part of team.

  Lise Fuhr:@Avri OK :)

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):To further develop a timeline for CWG work we will need an estimate from ICANN how long it will take to do the procurement.

  John Poole:The biggest impediment to moving forward (for those interested in “deadlines”) is not having independent legal counsel available and onboard.

  Seun Ojedeji:okay fine

  Seun Ojedeji:thanks

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Chuck, I will be looking for that info as well as seeing if any already-procured counsel could meet our needs.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Thanks Greg.  We should also find out how much longer it might take if we do not use already-procured counsel so we know the impact of not doing that.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Yes, - the GAC is pressing on information on the timeline - goes to the possibility to look into this in Singapore

  Matthew Shears:Are the ICG proposal and the accountbaility recommendations submitted as one or will NTIA review the community-agreed accountability receommendations  separately?  Do they need to be submitted in sync.  The ICG proposal needs to go in to NTIA in June/July but the CWG accountbaility may have more time?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Milton:  Good question.  I think it could go out for public comment twice if needed.

  John Poole:Timetable is dependent on procurement of independent legal counsel

  Avri Doria 2:preparing webinars takes time away from doing work.

  Matthew Shears:agree with Avri - we have much to do

  Robert Guerra:will it be a cwg or ICG proposal period?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:good to produce a "state of play/status update" of our work that e can use towards our 

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):That is correct regarding my questions Jonathan.

  Seun Ojedeji:We would definitely need at least one public comment

  Seun Ojedeji:i think it does not have to be 40days...+1 to shorter days

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: we need to decide if and when to meet in Singapore

  Seun Ojedeji:Nope i don't think it should be restricted to SO/AC, anyway it will generally depend on what we finally produce as a second draft

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):The feasibility of shorter comment period is dependent on each of who represent groups to keep them informed and get their feedback as we move forward.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Seun -- I'm not saying the comment period is restricted to SO/AC's.  I'm saying that the SO/AC's have to approve our final report -- a separate process.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Chuck and Greg - If we are using this consultation to PRIME THE PUMP to get the chartering orgs to eventually approve - it may be useful to have more time

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay noted @Greg

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Grace:  What is the best estimate as to how long the translations will take?

  Grace Abuhamad:depends on how long the document is

  Grace Abuhamad:the draft propsal  we published on Dec 1 was translated by Dec 23

  Grace Abuhamad:as an example

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Grace:  Is there a rule of thumb?

  Grace Abuhamad:rule of thumb is 3-5 business days

  Sivasubramanian M:Try and arrange an informal, relaxed meeting of the CWG at Singapore,  an evening or a boat ride, for free flowing exchanges

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Thanks.

  Grace Abuhamad:around ICANN meetings things take longer because there are more requests

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I don't think we named the Q&A meeting, did we?

  Grace Abuhamad:Yes we did @Greg.

  Matthew Shears:Do we need more F2F time in Singapore?  Just wondering if we would make more progress in person on many of the outstanding issues. 

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Thank you @Grace.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I believe that priority should always be given to questions from the community but it is also important to get feedback in questions for which we and our subgroups need feedback.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):At the risk of being masochistic, we could extend our Wednesday meeting in Singapore since it is the last meeting of the day, though I'm mindful that many of us may have other evening engagements.

  Seun Ojedeji:lost audio

  Seun Ojedeji:@Grace can i be redialed?

  Brenda Brewer:yes Seun..calling now

  Sivasubramanian M:Yes

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:I think F2F is more effective for real discussions, but see the challenges with travels

  Sivasubramanian M:Why not try and find if most members could stay back in

  Seun Ojedeji:still waiting for audio.....

  Sivasubramanian M:Singapore or  take a boat to Malaysia for the next Monday and Tuesday for intensive work

  Avri Doria 2:i think the high intensity was quite good. 

  Sivasubramanian M:i.e the monday immediately following the ICANN meeting

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Siva:  It can be quite expensive and demanding after an intense week of work to change return flights this late in the game.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:high intensity was very useful, but this was probably because of the preparatory work

  Avri Doria 2:but if we are at an halting impasse pont, then an actual f2f could become necessary.

  Sivasubramanian M:It would only be the change fee or the cost difference, while a specially organized f2f meeting woudl be far more expensive

  Avri Doria 2:ie. if we can't close any major difference in intense weekend, then we may need to travle again. the incentive is to not travel.

  Sivasubramanian M:There is a weekend inbetween so it would nt be tiring

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:I for one could not hang around until Monday the following week

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Chuck

  Sivasubramanian M:We will find an island nearby

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):To maximize the value of a F2F I think we need to be further along in our work.  I do like the Island idea though.

  Sivasubramanian M:The last minute change fee etc would only amount to a marginal cost

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):+1 to Martin, also difference in cost could be several US$100.

  Sivasubramanian M:Or Sunday and Monday

  Sivasubramanian M:with a Fri/Sat to relax

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):It ain't happening.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):However, perhaps our next F2F should be on an island, and the boar won't come back until we reach consensus.

  Lise Fuhr:Thank you Jonathan

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):boar = boat.

  Seun Ojedeji:Thanks Chair and all

  Seun Ojedeji:bye for now

  Avri Doria 2:bye

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:thanks, bye

  Matthew Shears:thanks

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Adios

  Sivasubramanian M:Bye

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Thanks Jonathan and all.

  Graeme Bunton RrSG:thanks all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:byew

  maarten Simon, SIDN:bye

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Bye all.

  • No labels