IANA CWG Meeting #21 ICANN 52 Singapore 11 February

---

Agenda: 

1. Opening Remarks

2. Briefing on SAC 69 Document

3. Client Committee on Legal Advice

4. CCWG-Accountability

    a. Coordination

    b. Response to 30 January Letter

5. Way Forward

     a. Work Methods

     b. Work Plan

6. Gap Analysis

7. Open Microphone – Opportunity for Observers to Engage in Working Meeting

8. Review of Action Items

9. AOB

Notes 11/2: 

1. Opening Remarks

• This group has taken its work seriously and worked very hard (including holidays)
• Work to date: Draft Proposal; Public Comment; Discussion Document
• Discussed feedback to date, especially from ICANN52, and suggest key points for moving ahead: 
• Continue to move ahead and to make good progress, and to be seen to make good progress
• A functional, implementable, and complete plan is needed

2. Briefing on SAC 69 Document

Presentation by Patrik Fältström & Russ Mundy

(Slides will be uploaded to meeting page on Wiki)

• In addition to SAC 69, please study SAC 67 and SAC 68
• If the CWG proposal does not match the SSAC recommendations, that does not mean that the SSAC would object to the proposal. The SAC documents are guides available to the CWG
• Fältström: Reading the document will make the CWG work easier

ACTION: All to review SAC 67, 68, 69 

ACTION: Smaller group to review documents in detail and pull out key actions for the CWG  

 

3. Client Committee on Legal Advice

Update by Greg Shatan

• Looking for core competency in the corporate governance area
• It's premature at the moment to discuss and particular law firm, but the list is being worked through
• Working with ICANN, but also independent of ICANN
• Coordinating closely with the CCWG-Accountability

Questions 

• Sridhar: How has "the client" been defined?
• Ojedeji: Is there a list? Where to follow discussion? What is the timeline for the advice?

4. CCWG-Accountability

Presentation by Mathieu Weill & Thomas Rickert

(Slides will be uploaded to meeting page on Wiki)

• Call for more "working together" on behalf of the chairs as well as the full group (lots of overlap on participants of groups)
• The CCWG-A will address the requests in the letter exchange, including budget transparency
• The CCWG-A will also address delegation and redelegations except for where countries need to deal with them
• Independent Review of Board Actions: there will be a mechanism that we can rely on (both empowered community and independent review). Substantive decisions on the ccTLDs will not be addressed by the Board.
• No reply to letter needed by mail since this has been addressed in session

5. Way Forward

• Chairs suggest focusing on building the document, to envision what a finished product would look like
• Our group had divided its work into subgroups related to the ICG RFP, but it may be more efficient to work as whole group. Create task forces as needed (for example on SLAs, detail of CSC, possibly the IAP)
• Integrating the group and working as a committee of the whole may be more effective
• Cross referencing the IANAPLAN-WG and CRISP proposals 
• This will serve purpose of developing incremental progress
• Legal advice is part of convergence on models
• All of the CWG's energy has been focused on too large a chunk of work, the idea of task forces is to tackle the work in smaller chunks 

6. Gap Analysis

(Introduced under item 5 "Way Forward")

• Existing proposals, SAC 69, etc, will help determine the gaps
• We also did our own analysis of the IANA functions contract, so we can refer back to that as well

ACTION: All to review NTIA slides

7. Open Microphone

• Suggest to reach out to other communities (protocol parameters and numbers) to see if they can add to gap analysis
• Suggest that the group review the IANA department

ACTION: Develop and maintain a required reading list for the CWG

8. Review of Action Items

• Smaller group to review documents in detail and pull out key actions for the CWG, including SAC 67, 68, 69; existing proposals submitted to ICG, NTIA slides on root zone management
• Reach out to other communities (protocol parameters and numbers) to see if they can add to gap analysis
• Develop and maintain a required reading list for the CWG
• Use mailing list to develop list of task forces categories (requirements, then solutions): SLAs is one  
• More transparency for Client Committee

9. AOB

Action Items

• Smaller group to review documents in detail and pull out key actions for the CWG, including SAC 67, 68, 69; existing proposals submitted to ICG, NTIA slides on root zone management
• Reach out to other communities (protocol parameters and numbers) to see if they can add to gap analysis
• Develop and maintain a required reading list for the CWG
• Use mailing list to develop list of task forces categories (requirements, then solutions): SLAs is one  
• More transparency for Client Committee

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #21 11 FEB Singapore.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #21 11 FEB Singapore.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1mw81inz9j/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/cwg-stewardship-11feb15-en.mp3

Documents Presented

presentation-ccwg-accountability-11feb15-en.pdf

sac-069-en.pdf

SSAC Activities Update ICANN 52 Singapore 2015v2 SAC-069.pptx

Chat Transcript

  Marika Konings: (2/11/2015 17:14) Welcome everyone to the CWG-Stewardship Session meeting

  Marika Konings: (17:15) We'll be getting startly shortly

  Marika Konings: (17:15) Please note that comments/questions from observers (non-CWG members or participants) are reserved for agenda item 7. 

  Marika Konings: (17:17) If there are any CWG members or participants that are participating remotely and would like to raise a comment or question for any of the other agenda items, please feel free to post those in the chat preceded by 'COMMENT' or 'QUESTION' and I'll do my best to get them in the queue for you.

  Oscar Mike: (17:56) QUESTION: Would the legal advice be coming from a firm which has expertise in US/California corporate governance law? Not sure whether it is within the scope of CWG Names, will the legal advice would also cater to issues regarding jurisdiction?

  James Gannon: (17:58) Oscar: I believe that deep experience in corporate governance was one of the requirements for the firm. Greg can answer the second part

  Marika Konings: (17:58) Hi Oscar - questions/comments are currently reserved for CWG members and participants. I can queue up your question for the open mic item under item 7 if you like.

  Oscar Mike: (17:59) Sure

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:07) @Greg thanks for the reponse, however i think it will be good to document properly the processes that will be followed in appointing the client. This is not just for the CWG but for the entire process

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:10) For instance criteria used in selecting the legal client and  the scope of engagement of the legal team with the client are 2 key aspects that needs proper documentation for future referencing when preparing the actual RFP response

  Grace Abuhamad: (18:11) The letter is available o nthe Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+from+CCWG-Accountability+--+30+January

  isoccameroon 2: (18:11) Thanks for sharing

  Grace Abuhamad: (18:12) (We don't have the usual scroll control facilities in the Adobe Connect room for this meetings)

  Keith Drazek: (18:12) I strongly support the CWG and CCWG working closely together to identify any areas of overlap and to ensure the respective solutions under development are actually in the right WG.

  James Gannon: (18:15) +1 Keith, its important to remember both groups are working towards the same goal.

  Keith Drazek: (18:15) There may be an opportunity to off-load certain aspects of the CWG work to the CCWG...if the CWG is focused on operational accountability of IANA to its customers, then the CCWG could address the bigger questions of organizational accountability of ICANN/IANA to the community.

  Keith Drazek: (18:15) +1 James

  Donna Austin, RySG: (18:16) I would envisage that the IAP could be picked up under the CCWG

  Keith Drazek: (18:16) it's two tracks that must result in a single solution

  Alan Greenberg: (18:17) @Keith. Definitely, we need to offload as ICANN Accountability needs arise.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (18:17) Glad to see this enhanced collaboration.

  Keith Drazek: (18:18) +1 Alan and Olivier

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (18:18) @OCL +1

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (18:18) @OCL that term is trademarked ;-)

  Keith Drazek: (18:19) I think if we're successful in focusing the CWG on the operational accountability of IANA and the CCWG on the broader accountability issues, we can actually accellerate the work and make significant progress in the coming weeks.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (18:20) @Keith, which would be an excellent outcome.

  Alan Greenberg: (18:20) I wonder how much earlier the ICANN budget must be ready to allow for community approval in the critical path?

  isoccameroon 2: (18:21) +1 Keith Drazek

  Paul Kane: (18:21) We  CWG need to identify specific areas may (or may not) be useful to work with CCWG on ....  I don't want the CWG to loose control of its core components

  Alan Greenberg: (18:21) @Donna, prbably not only an excellant outcome, but a mandatory one if we are to meet timelines.

  Sivasubramanian M - in room: (18:21) @ keith It would be a good idea to offload parts of CWG work to CCWG A or vice vesa, so that there is no duplication

  Keith Drazek: (18:21) @PaulKane, completely agree.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (18:21) @Alan, and more importantly, enjoy Christmas 2015

  Alan Greenberg: (18:22) @Donna, perhap add to our list of strategic objectives

  Keith Drazek: (18:22) Not a land grab, but perhaps a land swap that makes the work of both groups more efficient and to ensure there's no overlap, duplication and uncessary complexity.

  Matthew Shears: (18:22) + 1 Paul Kane

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (18:23) I'd emphasise team work

  Oscar Mike: (18:24) QUESTION: [OPEN MIC] Developing accountability mechanism/architecture would also depend on the nature of the legal entity/institution it is intended. How is CCWG planning to address this contingency?

  Keith Drazek: (18:24) +1 Martin

  Oscar Mike: (18:24) *intended for

  Marika Konings: (18:24) Thanks, Oscar, I've noted your question.

  Matthew Shears: (18:24) cross WG team work

  Greg Shatan: (18:26) @Seun, are their particular concerns you have in requesting this documentation, or is this just a general comment regarding transparency?

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:28) @Greg its for the later, and would add "accountability" to the transparency

  Paul Kane: (18:29) I support the idea of Task force groups

  James Gannon: (18:30) Johnathan/Marika on my behalf: Can we really move to that more granular sprint style approach when the higher level internal-vs-external debate has yet to be respolved or are we going to work on both concurrently?

  Keith Drazek: (18:30) +1 Jonathan, I agree that a review of the numbering and protocol parameter proposals could help inform the development and possible structure of the naming community proposal.

  Paul Kane: (18:30) May be the ccTLDs and GTlds can work together to forumate expected Service Levels from the IANA and report back to the rest of the group

  Donna Austin, RySG: (18:30) @Paul, I think that's a good suggestion.

  Keith Drazek: (18:30) +1 Paul, I think that would be very helpful.

  James Gannon: (18:31) Thanks Marika

  Oscar Mike: (18:32) COMMENT: CCWG should also try to include mechanism which ensures highest levels of transparency. Including strengthening already existing mechanisms like DIDP under ICANN structure

  Andrew Sullivan: (18:32) Not for the mic, but I observe that the agile/sprint approach requires a clear definition of done for any work item

  Marika Konings: (18:32) Thanks, Oscar, I will add your comment to the list for agenda item 7.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (18:32) I am in absolute agreement with Jonathan.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (18:32) @Oscar : that is within our radar at CCWG

  Marika Konings: (18:33) @Oscar - can I take your comment of the list following Mathieu's response?

  Oscar Mike: (18:33) Yes. Thanks Mathieu

  Oscar Mike: (18:35) @Mathieu: Correct me if I am wrong, GAC  suggested some language with respect to DIDP and confidential information through princples prepared by GAC for the IANA transition?

  Greg Shatan: (18:36) Andrew, Good point and I think the idea is to bring the "done" work back to the group of the whole in short order.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (18:37) @Paul +1

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (18:37) @Oscar : I am not an expert in that so can't answer unfortunately. Avri Doria is the CCWG Past ATRT Participant so we would be able to research if need be

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (18:38) The agile approach should bring roadblocks back to the group in short order as well

  Oscar Mike: (18:38) Thanks Mathieu.

  Matthew Shears: (18:38) + 1 Milton

  Seun Ojedeji: (18:38) Agree with @Milton

  Staffan Jonson: (18:40) Proposed revised work methods are most welcome

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (18:40) @Staffan +1

  Matthew Shears: (18:41) No doubt that we need multiple tracks runoing in parallel but they need to be very well corrdinated to we don't have overlap or worse directions of work that are at odds

  Paul Kane: (18:42) Matthew +1

  Robert Guerra - SSAC: (18:44) BTW have we skipped the Gap Analysis section of the agenda. thought that was on the list - before - open mike?

  Andrew Sullivan: (18:46) @Robert: the gap analysis part was mixed in with the other discussion

  Robert Guerra - SSAC: (18:46) ah.ok. thanks

  isoccameroon 2: (18:47) In the constitution of the CWG was care taken to include the physically challenged

  Paul Kane: (18:47) I was very please not the be involved in the Legal Advise sub-group (as a non-lawer) :-).  I am happy to be involved with two  topics - the Service Level group and as the former e-IANA Chair a possible end-to-end automation task force

  Oscar Mike: (18:47) Thanks Marika. Can Mathieu or Thomas answer my last question?

  Grace Abuhamad: (18:48) @Paul -- can you send an email to the list to get a list of task forces going? We can allocate on next call/meeting

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (18:48) @Oscar : as I said, the CCWG can work on basis of requirements. I am rather confident this can be made independent of legal structures but I admit I cannot be certain

  Paul Kane: (18:49) Grace - Sure if it is an adopted working method happy to

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (18:50) @ Paul:  I think a very good approach is for registries, g's & c's, to work together to develop SLAs, etc.  Thanks for volunteering. The RySG plans to participate in that as well.

  Grace Abuhamad: (18:51) @Paul -- perhaps we can confirm next steps in the action items section of the agenda

  Marika Konings: (18:51) if there are any other comments, questions from remote observers, please feel free to post them here in the chat preceded by 'COMMENT' or 'QUESTION' if you would like to have these read out as part of the meeting.

  isocgambia: (18:51) QUESTION 1 FROM ISOC GAMBIA CHAPTER:  If this organisation's main aim is to globalize internet accessibility, what are their action plans for places with poor internet facility or connection

  Robert Guerra - SSAC: (18:52) good question. Believe its out of scope for this cwg...

  Robert Guerra - SSAC: (18:53) i a question for the ccwg

  Greg Shatan: (18:53) isocgambia, you may want to ask this in tomorrow's public forum

  isoccameroon 2: (18:53) Good questions from ISOC Gambia

  isocgambia: (18:53) QUESTION 2 FROM ISOC GAMBIA CHAPTER: What is ICANN all about, how many Africans are part of your executive?  what are your main aims and objectives of establishing this association -- MAMUDOU BALDEH, THE GAMBIA

  James Gannon: (18:55) +1 Greg: Great questions from ISOC but not in scope for this meeting unfortunatly

  Marika Konings: (18:55) @Isocgambia - this session deals with the IANA Stewardship Transition. Your question seems to relate to the general role of ICANN, am I correct? You will be able to finid that information on our web-site at icann.org

  isocgambia: (18:56) THANKYOU

  James Gannon: (18:59) +1 Johnathan would like to see that

  Greg Shatan: (19:01) The legal scoping document has been circulated on the groups email list, which is archived on the group's wiki page.  In addition, we will have the legal scoping document posted to our wiki page at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351404

  Greg Shatan: (19:01) To be more accurate, the archive is linked to from our wikipage.

  Paul Kane: (19:01) Action item: List Task force categories

  Paul Kane: (19:01) Thanks Grace