Agenda

1. Opening Remarks 

2. CCWG-Accountability Update 

3. DT-O (budget)

4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals)

5. DT-N (Periodic Review)

6. AOB

7. Closing Remarks

Notes

 1. Opening Remarks 

• • Welcome -- chairs are co-located in ICANN Brussels office for two days.
  • 6 sessions in high intensity meeting: structural discussions with Sidley and functional/operational discussion with DTs. 
  • Convergence of views is critical. Amazing work and coordination in Istanbul. Let's retain that spirit. 
  • Need to develop and work on relationship with CCWG-Acct. Both groups (CWG and CCWG) use Sidley Austin as legal counsel. Need to further refine the list of requirements/recommendations for CCWG. They are aware of the time pressure we are under, and that they are thus under as well.
  • There was a request to move DT-A to meeting #36, and we have therefore pushed up discussion on DT-N. 

 4 areas of input for CCWG-Acct: 

• • ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions)
  • Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option)
  • Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism)
  • Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues)

The CCWG-Acct Chairs of the will do a recap today of where things stand from their end. 

 2. CCWG-Accountability Update (Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill) 

The group has been further developing its building blocks for the accountability framework. Some of the elements being looked at include Board recall, independent review panel, inclusion of periodic review in the bylaws. 

CCWG has a vision for the advanced accountability infrastructure and CCWG is working with two firms to see how the requirements can be implemented under CA law. 

CCWG is considering dividing WS1 into two areas of focus. First priority would be the CWG requirements. 

If there could be a list of items elaborated from the 4 areas of input, that would be useful to CCWG. Also useful to have use cases for testing. 

All 26 CCWG-Acct stress tests appear to satisfy the work/vision of the CCWG-Acct. Some have been identified already as relating to the CWG. Work is ongoing and satisfactory for now. 

Wiki link: https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw  

3. DT-O (budget)

• DT-O worked quickly and closely and had assistance from Xavier Calvez
• Explanation for recommendation 2: ICANN does not capture its costs on a functional basis. ICANN's Finance team has provided an itemization for FY15. Doing this for FY16 is not possible yet, because the CWG hasn't decided on a structure.
• Annex X suggests items to be addressed in the future. These are items that would need to be reviewed once there is clarity on what the CWG proposes as a solution. 
• No disagreement with DT-O recommendations
• CCWG is looking at a budget veto -- is this a dependency that needs to be addressed with the CCWG? 
• Who should be consulted as part of the budget process for IANA? Question to consider as we develop the rest of CWG proposal
• If there was a veto for IANA aspects, who gets to exercise the veto?
• The CCWG is providing the community with the tools. We need the community veto tool

Statement for CCWG: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed. 

4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals)

• Dealing with question of whether or not there was a need for a ccTLD appeals mechanism
• Survey closed on 3 April (only 28 responses were received)
• Low response rate would not allow mandate for CWG to proceed with designing an appeals mechanism now. 
• So recommendation is to not pursue this now
• The ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date. 
• For gTLDs, are the appeals provisions already? Only if there is an agreement. If a gTLD is not delegated, then there is no agreement and provisions to rely on. However, since this is a policy issue, it may not be appropriate for the CWG to require this of the CCWG. 

Statement for CCWG: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the DT-B survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (it is not required as part of the transition proposal). 

5. DT-N (Periodic Review)

• These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews. 
• First review after 2 years, and then every 5 years after that
• Are there other cases that could trigger reviews (other than the calendar? The CSC should be able to trigger a review after an emergency has been dealt with 
• The periodic review could initiate a RFP is review results indicated that this was a necessary next step. Is this something that the CWG thinks is in scope? Yes, but perhaps a question for public comment
• Does the review expand to address IANA policy?
• Suggest language "no more than 5 years" for the review period.  

Action (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language 

6. AOB

7. Closing Remarks

Action Items

Action (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language 

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #35 13 April.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #35 13 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:   https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7ad0yltcme/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-1100-13apr15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (4/13/2015 05:42) Welcome to CWG IANA Meeting #35 on 13 April.

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large): (05:50) hi, all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (05:56) hello all

  jorge cancio GAC (Switzerland): (05:57) hi all

  Mathieu Weill, Accountability co-chair: (05:58) Hello everyone

  Brenda Brewer: (05:59) Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Seun Ojedeji are on phone lines only at this time.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:59) Hi all!

  Grace Abuhamad: (05:59) Thanks Brenda

  Staffan jonson: (06:00) Hi All

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:00) Good morning/afternoon/evening, all.

  Wale Bakare: (06:00) Hi all

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:00) Hi all!

  Jonathan Robinson: (06:01) Hello All. We will start shortly.

  Allan MacGillivray: (06:01) Hello all.

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (06:03) Hi

  Alan Greenberg: (06:04) Hello all

  Chris Disspain: (06:04) Greetings

  Andrew Sullivan: (06:04) Hi.  I'm hearing no speaking; is that correct?

  Robert Guerra: (06:04) hello all

  Andrew Sullivan: (06:04) Yes, it was :)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:06) Thanks Grace  in the AC room now :-)

  Mathieu Weill, Accountability co-chair: (06:13) Thomas will start ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:25) All good from me thanks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:32) IOndeed  Thans Jonathan  I agre woth that assessment...

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:33) Thank you, I will stay on!

  Mathieu Weill, Accountability co-chair: (06:33) Thanks ! Will have to go but look forward to further engagement and coordination

  Mathieu Weill, Accountability co-chair: (06:33) Have a fruitful meeting !

  Lise Fuhr: (06:35) Thank you Mathieu

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:35) Yes  Xavier has been *extreemly* helpful to DT-O work   IMO   Well worth noting formally @Chuck

  Lise Fuhr: (06:36) Thank you Thomas for staying on

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:42) Mnor note for the Nots  re Stress ests  point  Perhaps we cn add the link to the CCWG ST-WP wiki  as a reference pont  for these meeting notes ...  Thanks...

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:43) Sure Cheryl. Will do now

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:44) Thanks  Grace

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:45) No Disagreement with DT-O  conclusoins ;-)

  Marika Konings: (06:48) All, we'll share the pdf version of the document for now but will continue taking notes in the background so we can share it after the meeting. Apologies for the technical issues.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:48) @Avri, I agree that the "budget veto" is probably NOT a dependency on the CCWG.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:49) In other words, the budget veto does not need to be part of the WS1A work stream.

  Avri Doria: (06:49) Greg, agree

  Avri Doria: (06:49) Yes, it is relevant.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegional Member: (06:55) AGree Absolutly here @Chuch

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegional Member: (06:55) sorry typo  @ Chuck

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (06:58) IMO, *ANY* veto would be a "community" one

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegional Member: (06:58) Yes  @Alan...   but we need to ensure that a Veto  to budget does not interfeer with ongoing IANA operations  being maintained at a satisfactory level... (inclusive one wiuld have thought to ensure future proofing  and ongoing develeopment of services

  Chris Disspain: (06:59) Correct Jonathan...

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (06:59) @Cheryl. Any veto would presume and allow the current budget to be extended to ensure contiunued operation. As important as IANA is, there are other aspects of ICANN that also MUST be kept operational.

  Chris Disspain: (06:59) 'in the view of the relevant component of the community' is the key

  Robert Guerra: (07:01) the challenge will be if there are different communities . some may or not wish a veto. how to reconcile, needs to be thought out

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegional Member: (07:01) @ Alan  this point has been discussed in CCWG  Sure bir has not (as such) been discussed here in CWG...  that is why I raise it now...  So it IS addressed in out thinking...

  Chris Disspain: (07:01) @ Robert...precisely

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegional Member: (07:02) YUP

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegional Member: (07:03) Yes  @Chuck those terms are *essential* 

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:04) Thanks, Chuck!

  Elise Lindeberg: (07:11) no comments

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC APRegional Member: (07:11) nondissagrrement with dt-b

  jorge cancio GAC (Switzerland): (07:12) this recommendation should be noted by CCWG

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:13) It is critical that there be an appeal mechanism for gTLDs.

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:14) Isn't there already an appeal mech for gTLDs, given that they're all under contract and have dispute resolution in there?

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:15) (No need to discuss on the call, since this is about ccTLDs)

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:16) Lise - Can I respond to Alan?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:17) Chuck: the Registry Agreement is signed before delegation occurs.

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:18) Alan -- can you confirm that the notes match your comments now? I edited the statement for clarity too

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:19) @ Donna: The decision to delegate is made before the agreement is executed.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (07:22) @Chuck - gTLD appeals as you are discussing is definitely not a CWG issue.

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:22) That should go into WS 2, though!

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (07:24) There would be a VERY big difference between an ICANN decisison to not (yet) delegate and an IANA decision to ignore an ICANN decision to delegate.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:26) @ Alan:  Yes, it is not a CWG issue, as I said to Chris.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:26) I think this group has always been very mindful that when it comes to delegation and redelegation, the ccTLD process is very different to that of the gTLDs.

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:34) Reminder: the reading list with all DT documents is here: https://community.icann.org/x/vCMnAw

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:39) @ Chris:  When you say IANA interpretation of policy, do you mean operational (i.e., technical) policy?

  Greg Shatan: (07:40) The management and oversight of ICANN, including the IANA Function, is a multistakeholder function.

  Greg Shatan: (07:41) The customers have an important perspective, but it should not be the only perspective.

  jorge cancio GAC (Switzerland): (07:42) 5 years seems like a quite a long period, isn't it?

  Greg Shatan: (07:44) Periodic: occurring or recurring at regular intervals.

  Elise Lindeberg: (07:45) Yes, Johanthan !

  Chris Disspain: (07:45) @ Jonathan ... I agree...my question was re reviewing the SOW as opposed to reviewing the higher policy stuff

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (07:45) How long would a review take? 5 + 1year to conduct review + I year to implement recommendations. So is this a 7 year cycle in effect?

  Greg Shatan: (07:46) I think the reviews would commence 5 years apart (e.g., 2017, 2022, 2027, etc.

  Greg Shatan: (07:47) Implementation and ex post review can certainly be part of the overall review process.

  Jonathan Robinson: (07:47) @Mark (and Greg). If the new review is commissioned at 5 year cycles and then implementation takes 1-2 years. We effectively have a 3 -4 year "steady state"

  Chris Disspain: (07:47) @ Greg...that would be fine provided there are other trigger mechanisms for review'

  Greg Shatan: (07:48) Agree there should also be post-emergency reviews.  Technically, those would not be "periodic."

  Jonathan Robinson: (07:48) @Chris. That was my point. It needs to be a "hard" no more than 5 years between triggers for regular reviews. That is independent of ad-hoc  or emergency reviews

  Chris Disspain: (07:50) @ Jonathan...yup

  jorge cancio GAC (Switzerland): (07:52) is this review team the same as the "PRF" in Sidleys papers?

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:52) Yes @Jorge

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (07:52) @Avri THnaks

  Chris Disspain: (07:53) I shall not make the next call...but very much look forward to joining you all at 1900 UTC (0500) for me when I shall be refreshed with caffeine and ready to go

  Avri Doria (gnso-ncsg): (07:53) Jorge, it could be, but not defining it specifically.

  jorge cancio GAC (Switzerland): (07:53) then I guess that the questions on the "punch list" still need to be looked at?

  Elise Lindeberg: (07:54) Have to leave soon,  - will try to join again in the last meeting this evening.

  Jonathan Robinson: (07:56) @Jorge. The "punch list" will be dealt with as part of our discussions with Sidley. We will pick up in meeting 37.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:56) also agree with Avri

  Avri Doria (gnso-ncsg): (07:57) what is a "punch list"?

  jorge cancio GAC (Switzerland): (07:57) @Jonathan - thanks! 

  Chris Disspain: (07:57) @ Avri...in my worklsd, a list of people I'd like to punch

  Avri Doria (gnso-ncsg): (07:58) Chris, hmmm

  Jonathan Robinson: (07:58) @Avri. A list of key issues provided by Sidley and circulated by Greg to the CWG

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (07:58) bye - going to DTF

  jorge cancio GAC (Switzerland): (07:58) @Avri: the "punch list" was distributed on Saturday with a list of pending questions by Sidley - guess staff can direct you to the doc

  Chris Disspain: (07:58) is that you humming, Avri?

  Avri Doria (gnso-ncsg): (07:59) ok. missed the name fo rthat list.

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (08:01) If you would like us to to work on this, we would need to know all the details you would like us to consider. Also, we would know whether this would be a WS1 vs. WS2 item. I suggest we would make this a WS2 issue.

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (08:01) Avri, a contractor (in this case Sidley) is bound by the contract to complete a list of contract items, called a punch list, in order to receive final payment from the owner. Or at least that is the definition, whether that applies to Sidley is another matter!

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (08:01) ...and I agree with what Greg!

  Greg Shatan: (08:01) By definition, anything we define as a dependency has to be WS1A!!!

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (08:01) what Greg said.

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (08:02) Thanks all

  Seun Ojedeji: (08:03) Noted...thanks

  Greg Shatan: (08:03) Sidley's punch list is one for us to fulfill, not them....

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (08:03) See you in two hours...

  Greg Shatan: (08:03) No more hands from me...

  Jonathan Robinson: (08:03) @Greg. Agrreed re punch list. Or at least CWG to fulfil in conjunction with help from Sidley

  Staffan jonson: (08:03) Thank You all!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (08:03) thanks

  jorge cancio GAC (Switzerland): (08:03) bye

  Allan MacGillivray: (08:04) 'Heraryou' later.

  Greg Shatan: (08:04) @Jonathan, correct. And happy to end on agreement.  :-)