Proposed Agenda: 

1. Opening Remarks & Review of Outstanding Actions

2. Legal Advice

     a. Update from Client Committee

     b. Introduction to Sidley Austin

3. Design Teams

     a. Overview of the DT list

     b. Update on DT-A (Paul Kane)

     c. Update on DT-B (Allan MacGillivray)

     d. Update on DT-C (Donna Austin)

4. AOB

5. Closing Remarks

Notes

Rick Boucher on audio-only

1. Opening Remarks

• Objective is to build out the draft proposal
• Need as much help as possible to acheieve our objective
• Bernie is working on updated version which will include placeholders for DTs

2. Legal Advice

Introduction of Sidley Austin to the CWG

• Holly Gregory (governance expert) speaking on behalf of Sidley team 
• Large team, but will work to stay as lean/efficient as possible 
• Ed McNicholas -- privacy, information technology
• Rick Boucher -- government strategies
• Cam Kerry -- former acting secretary of US Dept. Commerce
• Sharon Flanagan -- CA law and corporate governance
• Josh Hofheimer -- structural; non-profit experience
• Other expertise available as needed

Action (Grace): circulate Thune letter to CWG

Q&A with Sidley

• Keenly aware of the current contractual framework into the something that has legitimacy globally 
• Sidley hopes to address many of the questions in the CWG document in Istanbul
• Would only take on accountability-related work if the direction came from the CCWG (meeting with them later today to have this conversation)
• Core task is to advise on legal issues as CWG explores solutions for transition and that's what the Sidley team is built for. Rick and Cam have experience in the political world and can help explain, 
  down the road, what the issues will be with that aspect. 

3. Design Teams

• Concern with the utlility of the DT method
• Concern with the number of volunteers/expertise available for the number of DTs propose
• DTs are not all work in progress -- they are on the list because they have been proposed

Action (Marika) add "suggested by" to each DT

Action (Bernie/Marika): will send updated draft V.2 within 24h at the latest

Update on DT-A (Paul Kane) --> Paul  is not on the call

Update on DT-B (Allan MacGillivray) --> looking at doing a survey with the ccTLD community. Met for the first time on Monday. The current members are Maarten, Martin and Elise (observer). 

Action (Grace/Allan): Finialize setup for DT-B (email, Wiki, calls)

Update on DT-C (Donna Austin) --> approved and call for volunteers underway

4. AOB

Put target "termination" or report dates on DTs?

Action (Chairs): include final date for DTs as part of overall planning 

5. Closing Remarks

Project plan to be addressed further on Thursday

Objective to keep work going as fast as possible

Action Items

• 5Mar Action (Martin): Modify Principles as discussed on 5 March call and recirculate draft for CWG review. --> will remain open for next meeting
• 5Mar Action (Paul): Review DT template to ensure that DT-A scope is aligned.
• Action (Grace): circulate Thune letter to CWG
• Action (Marika) add "suggested by" to each DT in DT list document
• Action (Bernie/Marika): will send updated draft V.2 within 24h at the latest
• Action (Grace/Allan): Finialize setup for DT-B (email, Wiki, calls)
• Action (Chairs):  include final date for DTs as part of overall planning 

Transcript

Transcript CWG #27 110 March.doc

Transcript CWG #27 110 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2vwvgyzooi/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-10mar15-en.mp3

Documents Presented

CWG Design Teams - Status 9 Mar - upd.pdf

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer:Welcome all to the CWG Stewardship Meeting #27 on 3 March @ 17:00 UTC.

  Allan MacGillivray:Ye4s - thanks Grace.

  Grace Abuhamad:Great!

  Jonathan Robinson:Grace. It sounded as if Holly turned up her mic and that is causing worse noise.

  Maarten Simon, SIDN:good day !

  Graeme Bunton- RrSG:Much better.

  Robert Guerra:Robert here - hi all. going on mute

  Andrew Sullivan:I'm on the phone & here

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Evening

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello all

  Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone

  Grace Abuhamad:Yes we will

  Bart Boswinkel:I will

  Alan Greenberg:Hell all. On a very slow line. Not sure if  Iwill be able to speak or not.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Thanks Bart

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Last time Pauk stated that we wasn't sure he culd make it and also that he din't expect that anything major would change

  Steve Crocker:For discussion on the principles, a stress test for any proposal that includes separability is how to ensure the new operator is not worse than the current operator, i.e. how to prevent jumping from the frying pan into the fire.  How can you ensure the new operator is not subject to captureor other ills.  Without credible, essentially bullet-proof assurance that the new operator will be at least as good as ICANN, the inclusion of separability fails the stress test.

  Philip Corwin:This is an impressive legal team. In particular, I worked closely wth Rick Boucher on a number of issues when he served in Congress and he brings considerable strength to this effort.

  Avri Doria:Steve, of course it makes sense that if the current soltion denerated, we would want something that was provable better for some definiton of 'provable'  I think that the plan for a future sparation, which ever of the models is picked, woudl require that this be shown at the time, and not that it would need to be shown today.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):hard to understand...

  Grace Abuhamad:Christopher -- could you speak farther away from your mic so that we can understand you?

  Mary Uduma:No Audio

  Mary Uduma:Breaking up

  Avri Doria:also helps for us listeners to lower the volume. lessens the distortion.

  Grace Abuhamad:Thanks @Avri for the tip

  cw:Thankyou. CW

  cw:@Jonathan. Agree CW

  Steve Crocker:Avri, you wrote,"I think that the plan for a future sparation, which ever of the models is picked, woudl require that this be shown at the time, and not that it would need to be shown today."  Look at this from a skeptic's (Congress') perspective.  Doesn't this seem extremely optimistic.  What is known *today* about the process that will be in place in the future to provide the assurance of stability that you're saying would be picked?  Further, the future time you're pointing to will be at a time of maximum stress, which is precisely the wrong time to be inventing new solutions and duoing due diligence.

  Avri Doria:The process would need to be defined, but not the content that the process would have to review.

  Seun Ojedeji:Hello everyone

  Avri Doria:So Steve, an RFP, for example on the model done by NTIA in the past, whne ICANN had difficulty proving it was good enough on the first try, might be a reasonable model.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:Impressive team. The wider geo-politics of UN which will address IG issues in December and when progress with IANA transition will be a negotiating factor, adds to the time pressure. Can the team reassure us it can be agile and respond quickly in order to help sustain the momentum of direction towards solutions the global community can support?

  Steve Crocker:Heh.  I watched the RFP, proposal and evaluation process closely.  The entire exercise was clumsy and awkward, not a model that provided a high level of assurance.  It would take a while to go through the elements of each fo the three pieces -- RFP, proposal, evaluation -- to provide all the supporting details.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Good. Thnaks Holly.

  Brenden Kuerbis:I appreciate the legal team's committment to explore the full range of solutions, and raise new questions about them.

  Avri Doria:Steve, seems like a rat hole worthy of a DT

  Avri Doria:or is that what the newly suggested DT is about?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I don't think we know yet whether the CCWG will use a different legal team.

  Samantha Eisner:@Phil, the CCWG report does not have to be integrated into the ICG Proposal, though both are expected to be delieverd to NTIA at the same time

  Avri Doria:I am cinfused about the diect link between the advice we are looking for regarding our questions has to do with congressional opinions?

  Avri Doria:repeat with fewer typos: I am confused about the direct link between the advice we are looking from the Legal Team regarding our questions has to do with congressional opinions?

  Grace Abuhamad:@Avri do you want to raise a question on audio? Not sure if whole Sidley team is accustomed to chat

  Samantha Eisner:Agreed, Phil.

  Andrew Sullivan:Not for audio, but it seems to me that it's the WGs' responsibility to ask about any inconsistencies in legal advice.  Also, I agree with Avri about the amount of discussion of congressional opinion

  Andrew Sullivan:It's important, but I think it's more important to come up with a solid plan that can get wide MS support than that it satisfies a certain senator.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:One kegal Team  for both CWG and CCWG is a desirabe outcoime IMO

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:*sigh one Legal Team ;-)

  Alan Greenberg:One kegal team would be good as well!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr::-)

  Avri Doria:yes, thanks

  Kurt Pritz:@ Steve & Avri: My opinion is that an RFP for the IANA provider should issue only if ICANN isn’t and cannot perform. If ICANN is meeting the SLAs, there is no need to search for a replacement provider. If ICANN is not meeting the SLAs, escalation and corrective action has not brought ICANN into compliance, and there is a prospective inability to perform, then ICANN has failed, an RFP should be issued, and ICANN should not be a bidder.  I don’t think an RFP should be issued with the goal to find a “better” provider so long as SLAs are met.

  Alan Greenberg:Need to leave now. I call attention to the e-mail I sent an hour before the meetings related to transparency of the CWG-CLIENT mailing list.. Perhaps someone else can raise the issue on audio.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Alan  -- I fixed the list viewing issue. It was an error on my part

  Alan Greenberg:Thanks Jonathan.

  Grace Abuhamad:I can also do the viewable (non-posting) setup if that's agreed to by CWG

  Alan Greenberg:Thanks Grace. Most ICANN lists are set to either not see members or can only be seen by other members. Will look later.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Alan, it was "list members only" and I changed it to "anyone"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Welcome Sidley... looking forward to working with your team... Thanks for joining us today..

  Steve Crocker:@Kurt.  It's not that simple.  You've missed the key point.  Who will ensure the successor is not captured or otherwise flawed and how will they do that?

  Cameron Kerry:apologies.  apparently my microphone is not working in the app.

  Andrew Sullivan:@Steve: is the worry about capture of _iana_ or capture of the policy function?

  Andrew Sullivan:An awful lot of the "capture" question seems to me to be worrying about the ability of policy decisions to be taken incorrectly or whatever

  Grace Abuhamad:We are working on it

  Andrew Sullivan:if the problem is capture of the IANA function i.e. that the function doesn't do what it's told by the relevant policy people, then that's probably what needs to be addressed

  Holly Gregory:Dear all,   Good to meet you by phone and on behalf of the Sidley team,  looking forward to working with you.

  Andrew Sullivan:"capture" is not the problem, in that case, however.  It's failure to perform, for whatever reason

  Avri Doria:Capture is the boggie man of the age.  I think it is far more feared that it  ever exists in reality.

  Andrew Sullivan:No need to follow my remarks :)

  Grace Abuhamad:Document is unsynced so that you can scroll

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I found the DT document very useful.

  Avri Doria:do we go to DT AA after DT Z?

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:Just a thought related to timings, would a simple risk summary (e.g. what might cause delay) for each DT help manage the time planning and synchronisation?

  Donna Austin, RySG:Thanks Jonathan

  Marika Konings:@Avri - some of these were derived from the review of the draft transition proposal and sections that still need to be completed.

  Kurt Pritz:@Steve: my scenario for issuing the RFP occurs when ICANN has failed and can no longer succeed, so a successor HAS to be found. Avoiding capture and detecting fatal flaws would be addressed in the RFP. It was done once in 1998, so it can be done again. I view the likelihood of ICANN failure to be very low. Therefore, I don’t know how much work we should put into conducting a bulletproof process now when there is a low probability that we will need it and circumstances years from now are likely to require the construction of a new RFP.

  Avri Doria:i understand why you hope it has utily, i was admitting that i was suspending disbeleif on that still.

  Avri Doria:suspending disbeleif == makaing a decsion to beleive

  Avri Doria:wel after Z we could move on to a different character set.

  Andrew Sullivan:We can encode the DT names as A-labels.  That way nobody can read them :)

  Marika Konings:@CW, please see Annex A of this document which outlines the step-by-step process and addresses the volunteer question (step 7)

  Andrew Sullivan:More seriously, though, if this is really supposed to be an Agile process, then the prioritisation should be affected at least partly by dependency

  Kurt Pritz:I believe the SLA, CSC, Escalation mechanism, Periodic Review and (to an extent) Separation as all being related to a Quality Assurance function . If the design teams remain separate, the leaders should closely coordinate so that the proposal can be more easily written

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:yes

  cw:@Marika: Okay, but the document amounts to about 15x12= 180 'steps'.. I am glad I am not managing that within the deadlines.

  Avri Doria:i see thm a generic parts that people hope fit into whatever final decsion we get.

  Avri Doria:though not every solution will need every one of these DT parts

  cw:Well, each DT should present a 150 word summary which the Co-Chairs would concatinate into their final report to ICG. Not beyond the wit of woman and man, but a challenge none the less.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I like the backbone description.  I think that is what I am looking for.

  Avri Doria:and certainly CSC , IAP and any questions related to them fit in most solution models.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Avri: Where do we decide the solution model?

  Avri Doria:though the Interface between these entities may vary depending on model.

  Avri Doria:that is what i understood came later, thouh i guess we are going to spedn some %age of the Istanbul time on that.  i think that is what i understood.  i am certainly still working on the model i am supporting.

  Avri Doria:ie. the ad hoc integrated model team is still working on the model.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Thanks Avri.  That may be okay.

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Repeat: Last time Pauk stated that we wasn't sure he culd make it and also that he din't expect that anything major would change

  cw:Necessary, indeed. CW

  Avri Doria:forcing function dates may help wit the tendency to rat hole of these sorts of issues.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:Project planning is enhanced by some risk analysis. 

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Thanks all.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Good call Thanks Jonathan  ... Thanks  all...Bye for now then...

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Bye all

  Allan MacGillivray:Thnak you Jonathan.  Good day all.

  markus kummer:Good call! Thanks and good-bye.

  Andrew Sullivan:Bye all

  Brenden Kuerbis:thanks all, bye