Proposed Agenda: 

1. Opening Remarks / Recap of High Intensity Meeting 

2. Update on communications with CCWG-Accountability 

3. Update from Client Committee (Greg)

4. Outcome of combined DT-C; DT-M; DT-N call 

5. DT-A recommendations (Paul)

6. DT-F recommendations (Alan)

7. DT-X recommendations and suggested incorporation (Avri)

8. Action plan leading to Public Comment

9. AOB

    (a) Update on principles

    (b) Other

10. Closing 

Notes

1. Opening Remarks / Recap of High Intensity Meeting 

• 2-day meeting on Monday/Tuesday (there were 12h of total meeting time)
• Sidley Austin provided support on structural elements of proposal and group decided to focus on legal separation variant of the internal model
• Draft is being worked on -- sent to list today for an initial review, but the draft for comment will be delivered tomorrow 

2. Update on communications with CCWG-Accountability 

• Sent a letter to CCWG chairs yesterday evening to give an update on the dependencies and 'instructions' to the CCWG
• Four areas addressed: ICANN budget, community empowerment, review and redress, appeal mechanisms (not for ccTLDs but there is still interest for gTLDs)
• List came up in Istanbul, but the content was CWG-issued from the Mon/Tues meetings

3. Update from Client Committee (Greg)

Had a call today at 14:00 UTC

Deliverables for Sidley: 

1. Review DT-C (CSC) output for the competition / anti-trust concerns, more generally on governance best practices

2. Review the CCWG dependencies list (is it specific enough? have we locked down our dependency on the CCWG)

3. Description of the model to feed into the work of the CWG ("boil down" the 4 April memo). Include: 

    a. Strengths and weaknesses for legal separation model (could be used as implications of model for the "implications" section of proposal (section IV))

    b. Updated diagram 

    c. PTI Board responsibilities (scoping the minimum function of the PTI Board)

4. Outcome of combined DT-C; DT-M; DT-N call 

• Priority 2 DTs have been addressed. See notes from meeting #38 for further detail. 
• DT-H on .INT was awaiting input from GAC. The input was received today. 
• DT-C (CSC) has been mindful of not giving a  decision-making role to the CSC. 
• DT-C; DT-M; and DT-N have worked together to resolve issues and provide a solution for the proposal (knitting the DTs' work together). 

5. DT-F recommendations (Alan)

• Document is by not final
• DT-F does not know what is going to happen with Cooperative Agreement, so there are various parts that cannot be addressed by DT-F

Action (Alan): compare DT-F recommendations with  DT-C's CSC Charter 

6. DT-A recommendations (Paul)

• Initial comments received from IANA on the DT-A draft
• Further discussion next week based on Paul's schedule. 
• CWG may need placeholder text considering upcoming public comment date

7. DT-X recommendations and suggested incorporation (Avri)

• Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
• Need to continue working on text to include in draft proposal as soon as possible

8. Action plan leading to Public Comment

• Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review 
  and send comments. Ask for comments to be received by Monday at 23:59 UTC.

• Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). 

• Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment on Wednesday 22 April. This will reduce the Public Comment by two days 
  (28 days instead of 30 days).

• Thursday 23 April: Call TBC

• Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan) 

Action (Chairs): consider Q&A session later in PC period. 

Action (Chairs): communicate 2-day delay

3 outputs for Public Comment

Short form proposal

Long form proposal

Xplane summary/bird's eye view

9. AOB

    (a) Update on principles: Martin and Lise working on finalizing principles

    (b) Other

How to deal with unanswered questions (some that involve other communities)? A few groups left questions for future work. The goal is to get a proposal out. CWG can continue working.

Brenda has updated the attendance spreadsheets: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Attendance+Log+CWG-Stewardship. 1st place for top attendance goes to Greg Shatan. 2nd place is Graeme Bunton. 

10. Closing 

Action Items

Action (Alan): compare DT-F recommendations with  DT-C's CSC Charter 

Action (Chairs): consider Q&A session later in PC period. 

Action (Chairs): communicate 2-day delay

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #41 16 April.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #41 16 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4n0c540rxq/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-16apr15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (4/16/2015 11:42) Welcom to the CWG IANA Meeting #42 on 16 April

  Lise Fuhr: (11:57) Hello all

  Andrew Sullivan: (11:58) Hi there

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:58) Hi Kise

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (11:58) Hello all

  Lise Fuhr: (11:59) Hi Cheryl - early morning for you or middle of the night

  Jonathan Robinson: (11:59) Hello All

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC): (11:59) Hi All

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:00) 0300 so typing in the dark  yes   ( and K is next to L ;-)

  Lise Fuhr: (12:00) That is night -No worries I do it myself all the time ;)

  STaffan Jonson: (12:01) Hi all

  STaffan Jonson: (12:02) Will need to go to audio only in one hour

  Lise Fuhr: (12:02) Yes

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:03) Will there be a pin at the end of this exercise to indicate how many meetings everyone attended?

  jorge cancio GAC: (12:03) hi all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:04) @Donna:  a free lobotomy, I think

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:04) Yes @Donna -- we keep attendance.

  Gary Campbell: (12:04) @Donna lol

  Marika Konings: (12:08) Probably a bit later than this time tomorrow....(just to manage expectations)

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:09) @Marika. Thanks. Did not mean to push you too hard on that.

  Avri Doria: (12:11) So we did not mention the use of the fundamental bylaws mechanism

  Marika Konings: (12:12) @Avri it is on the second page at the bottom

  Avri Doria: (12:12) ok, i see it, thanks

  Avri Doria: (12:13) if we create a separation mechanism, we may also want to use a fundemental bylaws for that as well.  juming the gun, i know.

  STaffan Jonson: (12:22) I think paul is flying to europe right now

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:24) @staffan. Paul is still on the ground and truing to dial in now

  Chuck: (12:25) Confirm what Donna said.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:25) Great new @Donna

  Avri Doria: (12:25) also agree from DT-N perspective

  STaffan Jonson: (12:25) Wonderful Donna and Chuck. Looking forward to read

  Chuck: (12:26) @ Avri:  Note the role proposed in Annex Z for the IANA Review Function (Team).

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:28) Olivier -- I can forward you the notes from that call if you would like

  Avri Doria: (12:28) huck, i do not see that.  maybe i am looking at the wrong version fo the doc.

  Avri Doria: (12:29) sorry Chuck ...

  Brenda Brewer: (12:29) Paul is not on audio at this time

  Chuck: (12:30) @ Avri: Look at the last step of Annex Z in the version that Donna sent to the combined DT list.

  Greg Shatan: (12:32) @Avri, I thought we were having a Mark Twain moment.

  Avri Doria: (12:32) hi, once i turn off see changes, i spotted it.  was being blind.

  Brenda Brewer: (12:34) Paul Kane has joined now.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:35) I  assumed so with the brief bit airport noise ;-)

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:36) I don't understand that remark that just went by.  "It's not breaking now and everyone is happy, but do we need to do something else?"  Doesn't that put the burden of proof the wong way 'round?

  Avri Doria: (12:37) Andrew, some could see the departure of NTIA ass a kind of breakage that needs to be mitigated.

  Avri Doria: (12:37) pardon the sticky s key

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:38) ;-)

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:40) Sometimes your key is telling you something?  But more seriously, I'm sure there _are_ people who think this is a kind of breakage, but that feels to me like one of those "people differ on shape of the world" debates.  The process as it exists works well, and NTIA keeps saying they're a rubber stamp, so someone who thinks NTIA leaving is "breakage" ought to be able to say how, or we should reject their opinion as unfounded.

  Avri Doria: (12:41) i hesitate to consider anyone's opinion as unfounded.  i prefer to think that i may not yet understand.

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:43) @Avri: ok, but I didn't say we should just ignore people.  If they're not willing to offer an argument about why it's breakage, they're refusing to provide a foundation.  What is the breakage?

  Kurt Pritz: (12:44) The report should be amended to take the term "Council of Elders" out and replace it with the task and needed skill set. I think the "Elders" have a policy role (that the changes don't violate Policy) and a QA role (that IANA has implemented the change competently and it is ready to launch)

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:44) ok, thanks Alan

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:45) I note that ICANN has experts available to it through the (I think it's now called) technical experts group

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:45) @Andrew the breakage to some is the removal of NTIA which is also the reason for the multiple structures we've proposed (with legal seperation model). That said, i agree with @Kurt about "council of elders" who the hell are those?

  Kurt Pritz: (12:45) my comment goes more to the two roles than the term

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (12:46) point well taken  @Kurt

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:47) @Seun: that's a circular argument.  You can't just say, "Taking NTIA out is bad because taking NTIA out is bad."  What is it that NTIA is doing that needs to be done by which there is breakage?  Well, we're supposedly adding things here, but so far I don't see the proposal to add the NTIA's formal role in approving workaday  changes , and there's a clear suggestion that someone needs to review major changes for technical correctness

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:47) that seems like a sensible thing to say, so now we just need to pick who those technical correctness checks are

  Andrew Sullivan: (12:47) that seems to me to be a case by case problem, actually, because different technical expertise would be needed in each case

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:49) Maybe it would be simpler to replace "environment" with architectural or operational issues?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (12:49) Alan   from  @Martin's comment  it is probably best if we add headingfs (just to be cklear)  to sec 1&2  etc.,  of the doc....  just as you responded  to him in the Answer is basis for such headings text IMO

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (12:50) and Yes  Brenden  that  would be beter terminology...

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:50) @Andrew yes i think thats a better term in this context. Council of elders is definately not a phrase to use. Nevertheless i think its good to know that its noted accordingly. For the record @Cheryl i am concerned about the name

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (12:51) Ignore the term  @Seun it is a ditionstrac

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (12:51) should read distraction

  Avri Doria: (12:55) The  unofficial, ad hoc,  DT-X separation mechanism effort.  Drive doc open to suggestions at : <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>

  Avri Doria: (12:59) your word is enough to make un unofficial.  just did not wish to presume

  jorge cancio GAC: (12:59) the work of dt-x looks key to this work

  jorge cancio GAC: (13:00) multistekolder element will have to be maintained of course in the triggering process

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:00) Although we have passed this item, I made a few comments about DT-C where can i find the DT-Members outcome about it?

  Guru Acharya: (13:01) @Grace: If there is mailing list for DT-X, then please add me to it.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:02) This  X must for sure be in the draft for  public comment

  Kurt Pritz: (13:02) Avri: I have some thoughts, how do you want me to contribute?

  Marika Konings: (13:02) @Guru - there is no mailing list, but Avri has shared the google doc which I believe is open for anyone to comment

  Avri Doria: (13:02) anyone should go to the url and just start typing  it will show up as suggested text.

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:02) There is no mailing list for DT-X. Please comment on main mailing list

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:03) right mailing list and google doc

  Avri Doria: (13:03) or they can use the comment feature

  Guru Acharya: (13:03) Thanks.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (13:05) @Avri: thanks - your explanation right now explained it.

  Kurt Pritz: (13:11) i think what Olivier is talking about is a prospective inability to perform

  Marika Konings: (13:13) Friday evening.....

  Avri Doria: (13:13) what is the latest time to get text in for DT-X SM?

  Marika Konings: (13:14) @Avri - to get it into the draft for review, ideally no later than Friday 17.00 UTC.

  Avri Doria: (13:15) Ok. will try for that.

  Avri Doria: (13:15) everyone with a thought on this should jump on the doc real soon now.

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:15) If the document is not going out for PC then an update announcment needs to be published by the Co-chiars (a timeline update)

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:16) I think we should have one webinar a bit later also - so people can read the draft first

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:19) I don't see action item to announce update timeline

  jorge cancio GAC: (13:20) +1 elise

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (13:20) I think that it would be good to be communicated

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (13:21) We are talking about a 244 page draft. Correct?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:21) maby we could do Q and A also then -

  Christopher Wilkinson (CW): (13:22) Could we please have page numbers and paragrph numbers. Otherwise how can we commont on-line accurately and constructively.

  Kurt Pritz: (13:23) Is there going to be an XPLANE graphic coming out of this meeting?

  Marika Konings: (13:23) @Christopher - the document has page numbers as well as section numbers

  Chuck: (13:23) I am not sure the short form could be effectively separated from the annexes because the short form is way too general and would raise too many questions.

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:23) @CW it could be more, so fasten your seat belt ;-)

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:24) CW -- we have been working hard to produce a draft that is agreeable content-wise. We will add formatting

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (13:24) good point @Chuck

  Alan Greenberg: (13:25) I have an AOB

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (13:28) Thanks @Martin...

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:28) Not me tomorrow, I'm afraid

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:28) I'm at a family wedding

  Lise Fuhr: (13:29) I will

  Avri Doria: (13:29) apologies, i need to drop off for another call.

  Lise Fuhr: (13:29) Family wedding sounds nice

  Lise Fuhr: (13:29) Bye Avri

  Avri Doria: (13:30) actually will stay in AC, but not listening.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (13:30) bye Avri

  Lise Fuhr: (13:31) Yes we need to continue

  Lise Fuhr: (13:31) during the public comments

  Chuck: (13:32) I also think we need to deal with Greg's question about the mission of the GNSO related to being involved in the escalation process. Probably for ccNSO as well.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (13:33) THe question about legals vs. functional will beanswred after the Public Comment period?

  Chuck: (13:33) I suspect that the GNSO & ccNSO missions issue is not resolvable before publishing the proposal for comment.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (13:33) I am cinfident it can't be @Chuck

  Chuck: (13:33) I think Eduardo raises a critical question.

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:36) All -- Brenda has updated the attendance spreadsheets: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Attendance+Log+CWG-Stewardship. 1st place for top attendance goes to Greg Shatan. 2nd place is Graeme Bunton.

  Greg Shatan: (13:36) It took a 3-5 AM meeting to knock me out of 100% attendance.  Well played.

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (13:37) olé!

  Greg Shatan: (13:37) I have my limits.  Needed to be fresh for the 6 AM meeting.

  Lise Fuhr: (13:37) Thank you Jonathan and goodbye

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (13:37) bye

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:37) thanks

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (13:37) thanks jonathan

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:37) bye

  jorge cancio GAC: (13:37) bye

  Greg Shatan: (13:37) Goodbye all.

  STaffan Jonson: (13:37) Thank You all

  Andrew Sullivan: (13:37) thanks everyone.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC - APRegional Member: (13:37) Thanks everyine... talk soon... bye for now...