Agenda

1.     High Level Recap on Structural

2.     Review of Punch List (Chronological / Alphabetical)

3.     Instructions to Sidley?

4.     “Instructions” to the CCWG (Optional)

5.     Way Forward 

Notes

CWG IANA Meeting #40 at 14:00 UTC

Plan for this call is to go through the punch list from start to finish to assist Sidley. Also will review work for the CCWG. 

Request to do a side-by-side comparison of the two variants. Sharon kindly provided one via Client list. This was provided to the CWG list as well. 

Periodic Review Function has been renamed IANA Review Function. 

We are not settled on the insider Board. We could live with it providing sufficient accountability mechanisms

The Board could be internal and independent

We have to define the function/role and then see what is the composition of the PTI Board. 

2. Review of Punch List (Chronological / Alphabetical)

(Edits in Word document on screen share)

Can the group compromise on legal separation? Yes, at this stage. 

3. Instructions to Sidley?

• Filled out punch list
• DT-C (CSC) – Adequacy of provision for Conflicts of Interest & Governance
• Conditional Proposal Wording – Implied “Contract with the CCWG”

4. Instructions for CCWG 

• ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions)

Response: The CWG supports the idea of budget veto tool, and the CWG expects the CCWG to deliver on this ability for the community to veto 
the budget. Furthermore, with regards to the details to be provided in relation to the IANA budget, the CWG is expected to recommend as part 
of its transition plan that:

1. The IANA Function’s comprehensive costs should be transparent for any future state of the IANA Function.

2. Future FY ICANN Operating Plans & Budgets, and if possible even the FY16 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget, include at a minimum
 itemization of all IANA operations costs in the FY ICANN Operating Plan & Budget to the project level and below as needed.

• Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option) – 

Response: As part of the structure that the CWG is currently considering (Internal accountability hybrid model: legal separation variant), the CWG will 
be relying on the community empowerment and accountability mechanisms that the CCWG is considering such as the ability to review of ICANN Board 
decisions on the IANA periodic review performance (PRF); approve or reject board decisions on PRF as well as the related creation of a stakeholder 
community / member group to trigger these kinds of abilities. As such the CWG wants to emphasize again the interlinkage and interdependence between 
the two groups and the need to continue close co-operation and regular information sharing. 

• Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism)

Response: The CWG is expected to recommend that a periodic review of the IANA functions is scheduled to take place no later than every 5 years and 
would operate in a manner analogous to an AOC review. As the CWG understands that the CCWG is working on incorporating other periodic reviews as 
mandated by the AoC, the CWG would like to know whether an IANA Periodic Review could be incorporated as part of those efforts. Further details on the 
mechanics of such a review are available and can be shared should the CCWG confirm that this is indeed something that can be incorporated as part of the
CCWG’s efforts. 

• Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues) 

Response: The CWG recommends that the CCWG should be mindful of the recommendations of the CWG in relation to an appeals mechanism for ccTLDs 
and the survey results that led to this recommendation which notes that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation 
at a later date (post-transition). As such, any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover ccTLD delegation / re-delegation issues as these 
are expected to be developed by the ccTLD community through the appropriate processes. However, the CWG does want to emphasize the 
importance and need for an appeal mechanism to cover any other issues that may involve IANA and notes that this is option is expected to be 
specifically called out as one of the possible escalation mechanisms  in the draft transition proposal.

5. Way Forward 

Design Teams will complete their work by end of day Wednesday so that the work can be discussed on the CWG call on Thursday at 17:00 UTC. 

Template for public comment response. 

One of the Chairs will facilitate the DT negotiation call on Wednesday. Sidley should join. 

Action (Chairs): send instructions  

Action Items

Action (Chairs): send instructions 

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #40 14 April.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #40 14 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2d4k5kk3qx/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-1400-14apr15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (4/14/2015 08:27) Welcome to  CWG IANA Meeting #40 on 14 April!!

  Chris Disspain: (09:00) Hello again!!!!

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:00) Hello.

  Lise Fuhr: (09:00) Hello all - are you ready for a last session?

  Chris Disspain: (09:01) it's like the encore at a concert

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (09:01) Indeed - and now the sun is up here, so that is good

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:01) What does 'ready' mean?  :)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:01) still in CCWG call as well

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (09:01) ¡Hola a todos!

  Staffan Jonson: (09:01) Hi all (where were you all these minutes ;-) ?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:01) Hola Eduardo!

  Alan Greenberg: (09:02) Yes, still on CCWG as well.

  Brenda Brewer: (09:02)  Seun Ojedeji  is on phone line

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:02) Thanks Brenda

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:02) hi all again

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:03) Now here as well. Thanks (although this may flaunctuate due to bandwith)

  jorge cancio GAC: (09:03) hi again

  Greg Shatan: (09:10) Au revoir CCWG....

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:10) I think there is still disagreement on insider board

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (09:12) Hello CWG!

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (09:12) CAn we put the latest Sidley doc in Adobe?

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:12) Crosstlak

  Greg Shatan: (09:12) No hackles here.

  Robert Guerra: (09:13) sounds like spanish in the background

  Chris Disspain: (09:14) you can also contrain that from within icann

  Andrew Sullivan: (09:15) @Chris I agree.  I don't really believe it's possible to build a structure that guarantees nobody can do something stupid.  All one can do is to make it painful to do evil. 

  Avri Doria: (09:16) can a PTI board be split between insider and independent board members

  Andrew Sullivan: (09:16) This is true today, also

  Chris Disspain: (09:16) @ Andrew - I think we can guarantee that somebody will do something stupid

  Chris Disspain: (09:16) somewhere

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (09:16) @Avri - yes, hybrid is a possibiluty too

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:16) I hope we have not reached the point where we have concluded that legal seperation is what will be presented for public comment. As i think the details of the functional seperation may need to be looked into as well (although i see way forward as the last item on the agenda)

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:17) That might also provide the other communities to comment on PTI board.

  Avri Doria: (09:17) Sharon, thanks.  perhaps a hybrid model of the PTI Board works in this hybrid solution.

  Greg Shatan: (09:18) @Avri, yes, but then it is not an "insider board."

  Avri Doria: (09:18) we might also be blinbed y the bubble we are in.  hnece the constant need for comment.

  Greg Shatan: (09:19) The "Chulk" emerges!

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:19) Eduardo -- we want to focus the conversation for the moment. You can dowload the document from Sidley here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (09:20) Joining, now.  APologies for my delay

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (09:20) @Gracde: Got it. Thanks.

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:20) @chuck, if i may, what does independent and internal board mean? does internal board on PTI mean bringing members from ICANN board or bringing members from the community?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:21) Strongly agree Jonathan on Board.

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:23) Again i think i am lost on the use of internal vis independent as it relates to PTI

  Jonathan Robinson: (09:23) @Seun. I'll ask Sidley to respond or do so myself in a moment

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (09:23) Will do

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:24) Thanks Chris.  Very helpful.

  Avri Doria: (09:24) why would an independet board no be accountable to icann community escalation?

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:24) Agree with a lot Chris said. Maybe we need clarity around what internal is. I.e., apointed by ICANN corp or by community SOs/ACs? 

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:25) Okay thanks...thats useful clarification

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (09:25) insider/ internal board;  independent board for PTI is constituted by multistakeholder community;  hybrid board includes members selected in both wayspointed

  Avri Doria: (09:25) or in a hybrid mix, the independent directors not be accountable to community escalation?

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:26) independent + 1 ICANN exec for info sharing

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:29) Works for me @Chris...

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (09:29) Chris, good points re clarity in accountability from having PTI as an insider board

  Staffan Jonson: (09:29) demands for Internal board is for letting ICANN control it, however, What happens with separability (which has a strong support in cc land)?

  Chris Disspain: (09:31) Greg..the CWG could mandate that

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (09:32) I think that if we go the affiliate route we should  have a bares bones "board". After all the affiliate is doing technical operation

  Avri Doria: (09:32) Can CSC appoint a Board Member

  Chris Disspain: (09:33) @ Avri that would mke sense to me

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (09:33) Staffan, there is a trade off here.    If the community is holding ICANN accountable for IANA functions , Chris' point re clarity is very good one.  It means that even with separate legal structure, however ICANN still has some control of IANA

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:33) @Eduardo +1

  Avri Doria: (09:34) and ICANN nomcom appoint one or more?

  Avri Doria: (09:34) 2 exec, 2 icann borad, 1 csc, some nomcom &c ?

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (09:35) CAn we have liasons  in the board?

  Donna Austin: (09:35) @Avri, do you mean someone from the CSC could be on the Board, or appoint someone?

  Avri Doria: (09:35) so/ac liaisons to the PTI board?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:35) @ Avri:  exec?

  Avri Doria: (09:35) Donna, i was tinking of (s)electing one. whether it one of CSC or picked by is something i did not get to.

  Chris Disspain: (09:35) OCL - completely agree

  Avri Doria: (09:36) Chuck exec, .e.g gdd  rep

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:36) @Staffan:  wouldn't the function be with a new contractor and that contractor will define its own Board.  But then the stewardship is in the ICANN Board which manages the contract

  Chris Disspain: (09:36) in simple terms...CEO of IANA, appointee of CEO of ICANN, 2 experienced ICANN Board members and some ccs anf gs

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (09:37) @MArtin: that is the way I understand this

  Chris Disspain: (09:37) not suggesting my suggestions are right...just an example

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:37) @Chris:  CFO?  Manager of IANA Function operator

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:37) ?

  Avri Doria: (09:37) seems like it could be subject to the same community control as icann. the community escalation methods.

  Chris Disspain: (09:37) quite possibly Martin

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (09:38) @Avri, that could be true, but then it would seem to create a lot of redundancy

  Chris Disspain: (09:38) yes avri

  Allan MacGillivray: (09:38) As I understand the debate between ‘insider’ and ‘independent’ boards,  if PTI is populated with ICANN directors, then if the CCWG developed a mechanism to remove ICANN directors, it could be used to remove PTI directors as well.  If it is an independent board, then separate mechanisms to remove the directors would be needed. 

  Avri Doria: (09:38) not recreating them, but using them.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (09:39) The affiliate is a "fusy" functional division with a contractt that identifies its assets and such.

  Chris Disspain: (09:39) don't think so Chuck...if you separate you'll have a new board

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (09:39) Do we need PTI board for that?

  Chris Disspain: (09:39) why Sharon?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:40) surely separation with an independent board remaining in place is not a good idea?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:40) Thanks Sharon.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:40) They've overseen a faailure of the model

  Greg Shatan: (09:40) An insider board doesn't get in the way of separation, IMHO.

  Greg Shatan: (09:41) Insider boards get hosed down and swapped out when a sub is divested.

  Chris Disspain: (09:41) agree Greg

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (09:41) +1 Greg, you and Sharon are saying the same thing

  Greg Shatan: (09:42) @Martin, if we are spinning out PTI, rather than shutting it down, then PTI hasn't failed.

  Greg Shatan: (09:42) Something else has gone wrong above it.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:43) why are we spinning it out, Greg?  It would be because something was going wrong.  No?

  Alan Greenberg: (09:44) Indeed, interesting that we think that we would only spin it off if something very broken with it, but we somehow beleive that spun off, it will work well.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:44) Wrong in the delivery of the service, in the technical decisions, in following policy

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:45) @Alan:  and with the same Board that oversaw a loss of trust in the subsidiary/afiliate

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (09:46) IANA is not going to be able to be separated from ICANN ever since ICANN is the custodian of the stewardship. The affiliate is just doing a technical job which can be contracted away to someone else.

  Avri Doria: (09:47) Chirs, not necessarily, you might want to keep the same people doing the IANA function.

  Greg Shatan: (09:47) If the affiliate was the problem, we would shut it down rather than spin it out.

  Chris Disspain: (09:47) agree Avri but not necessarily

  Greg Shatan: (09:47) And we would go find a better provider.

  Avri Doria: (09:47) but might decide a different form of management was warranted.

  Chris Disspain: (09:48) yup

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:48) You're both right. But at that stage I think we'd be revisting all the governance questions.

  Avri Doria: (09:48) you might have the other operational communities decide they wanted to be members of the affiliate someday down the road.

  Alan Greenberg: (09:48) @Avri, subcontracting OFTEN goes along with "selling" your people to the subcontractor.

  Chris Disspain: (09:48) yes Alan'

  Avri Doria: (09:48) sevveral scenarios where it might spin out.

  Greg Shatan: (09:48) @Eduardo,  ICANN can still hold the right and issue the contract.  It will just be a third party acting as IANA rather than the current affiliate/business unit.

  Chris Disspain: (09:49) If we run an RFP we cannot say 'you must take over sub co'

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (09:49) Could the ICANN staff kindly display the punch list?

  Greg Shatan: (09:49) @Avri, true, but that wouldn't be a spin-out.

  Avri Doria: (09:49) a spin out and a RFP are not identical.

  Greg Shatan: (09:49) Just a change in board composition.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:49) Shouldn't we talk a little bit about 1.b?

  Avri Doria: (09:50) so sorry i missed the last meeting, had recorded schedule wrongly.

  Greg Shatan: (09:50) Avri, correct.  Spin out and RFP are pretty much mutually exclusive.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (09:52) good point ro role driving composition

  Matthew Shears: (09:52) Does the PTI Board have a review role - ot is it merely a legal strucutre for the affiliate

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:53) That's fine Jonathan.

  Chris Disspain: (09:53) review is done by the CSC and review committee

  Matthew Shears: (09:53) so it is purely for legal structure purposes

  Chris Disspain: (09:53) IMO yes

  jorge cancio GAC: (09:53) I would like to ask that the discussion is also reflected on the Notes of the meeting - for instance this very important point that first we have to define the function and then see what is the form of the PTI Board

  Donna Austin: (09:54) CSC not currently slated to do periodic review

  Matthew Shears: (09:54) does the CSC report customer issues to the Board?

  Chris Disspain: (09:54) sorry Donna - yes

  Chris Disspain: (09:54) but it has day to day interface role

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:55) Noted thanks Jorge. We are multitasking on notes.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (09:55) So why do you we want to go through the trouble of creating an affiliate. If the function does not work within ICANN as it is today you shut it down, put out an RFP and move it to someone that can do it better. That is certainly what NTIA has the power to do it today. 

  Donna Austin: (09:56) @Matthew -- not currently

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:56) @ Eduardo: I think the comparison table that Sharon provided today helps answer your question.

  Andrew Sullivan: (09:57) @Eduardo: the strongest argument for creating the affiliate now is that it would be clear now what functions were inside and outside the boundary

  Andrew Sullivan: (09:57) (IMO)

  Matthew Shears: (09:58) + 1 Jonathan

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (09:58) @Andrew: I though it has to do mostly with asset allocation. If you decide to move it out, you put an RFP and ask for whatever you need. I migth be wrong.

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:58) Approve Budget request from IANA staff? this is assuming specific amount of fund is within the scope of PTI and my question is what ensure such funding is accessible. Secondly if PTI approves budget, does it get to ICANN board for another approval

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:59) So if the PRT was to recommend a new RFP then why would the ICANN Board follow this?

  Avri Doria: (09:59) especially if it is listed in ICANN ByLaws

  Chris Disspain: (10:00) @ OCL - becaue the ICANN Board would be obliged to

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (10:00) @Andrew: I was under the impression that the inside/outside functional boundaries are well spell out in the current contract with NTIA

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:00) Yes, it seems some operational issues could be resolved more quickly htat way

  Avri Doria: (10:01) Becasue the RFP bylaw mechanisms, if one exists, would esist and there would be the escalaton processes.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:01) As long as there is a golden bylaw about then it would probably work, I guess....

  Matthew Shears: (10:01) tomes of bylaws.....

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:02) @Matthew: LOL

  Chris Disspain: (10:02) agree Alan - review go to ICANN - day to day stuff goes to IANA board

  Avri Doria: (10:02) yes, i was thinking the RFP bylaw, if one is recommended, would need to be of the fundmental sort.

  Chris Disspain: (10:02) this is not an unusual state of affairs

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:02) Good suggestion Chris.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:02) @Avri - agreed

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:03) I think you are right Avri on RFP.

  Matthew Shears: (10:03) so the PTI is has no role in responding to immediate concerns riased by the CSC or the PRF?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:04) I don't think that necessarily follows Matthew.  Shouldn't the CSC go to the PTI first for service problems?

  Chris Disspain: (10:04) yes Chuck

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:04) We are probably talking about escalation.

  Chris Disspain: (10:04) we are indeec

  Chris Disspain: (10:04) we are indeed

  Matthew Shears: (10:05) I agree Chuck - I think it should - just wnated to check the thinking

  Chris Disspain: (10:05) escalation mechs are crafted both as who escalates and to whom they escalate

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:07) DT-C has not quite reached closure yet

  Avri Doria: (10:08) so change control still belongs to the DTs?

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:09) lol

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:09) that sounded like that person was flushed out

  Greg Shatan: (10:09) Flushing the insider board at the time of divestiture.

  Chris Disspain: (10:09) I'm bowled over

  Greg Shatan: (10:10) Let's not let this meeting go down the drain.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:10) Is 5 really a CSC issue?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:10) I thought it would be higher up the escalation

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:11) What if systemic issue that CSC identifies?  Send to PRF?  Send to IRP?

  Greg Shatan: (10:11) Need to identify what is is being "independently reviewed."

  Donna Austin: (10:12) Agree with Greg, I'm not sure I understand what would be independently reviewed.

  Chris Disspain: (10:12) Good question Sharon...depends on how far the CSC deals with issues...to be decided tomorrow I think

  Chris Disspain: (10:13) yes Greg - that's my understandong

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:16) Would look to what is in numbers, protocols proposed contracts?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:16) The IRP could review a complaint from a registry operator that was not satisfactorily  resolved.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:17) SLEs in the contract?

  Chris Disspain: (10:17) Yes

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:18) I would agree, but who authorises changes?  Need to go through the ICANN Board

  Chris Disspain: (10:19) goes thru CSC Martin

  Chris Disspain: (10:19) agree Jonathan

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:20) yes, but if it is in contract there needs to be a mechanism to agree changes, doesn't there?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:20) I agree this can be deferred

  Chris Disspain: (10:20) yes Martin...separate conversation

  Matthew Shears: (10:21) Isn't this what DT X is going to be looking at?

  Greg Shatan: (10:22) The second bullet is part of what's to be discussed tomorrow .

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:22) I do think that we need to deal with triggers before we go to public comment.

  Matthew Shears: (10:22) there's also an element of DT-L in the last bullet in that section

  Greg Shatan: (10:23) Three eyes would be helpful.

  Staffan Jonson: (10:23) Two types of triggers; for escalation from CSC and for ultimate separation

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:24) @ Staffan:  I am encouraged to hear you suggest a role for the CSC regarding escalation.  :)

  jorge cancio GAC: (10:25) in the "triggering" the multistakeholder element has to be retained

  Matthew Shears: (10:26) is this triggering spin out or RFPs

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:27) I think both

  Staffan Jonson: (10:27) Chuck: For the CSC? naaaa ;-)

  Staffan Jonson: (10:27) Yes

  Staffan Jonson: (10:28) Yes again

  Staffan Jonson: (10:28) And triggering need to be predictable, and according to a very narrow defined process

  Greg Shatan: (10:29) With apologies, I must step away to chair another call.

  Donna Austin: (10:31) The CSC Charter currently says: The CSC is not mandated to initiate a change in the IANA Functions Operator.

  jorge cancio GAC: (10:31) I don't think CSC by itself would be multistakeholder enough to trigger the separation as such, without prejudice to ibeing able to nitiating such a process

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:31) I think the safest approach is for us to focus only on the naming function with the option for the RIRs and IETF to join.

  Chris Disspain: (10:32) Jorge - agree - CSC triggers process not actual separation

  Avri Doria: (10:32) As long as cIETf and RIRs are ICANN's clinets, they are pretty much along for the ride.  but it is conceivable that naming could move away from IANA while Protocols and Numbers stuck with ICANN.

  Matthew Shears: (10:32) + 1 Jorge/Chris

  Donna Austin: (10:32) @Chris, Charter currently says that the CSC is not mandated to initiate a change in the IANA Functions Operator.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:32) We could flag this for ICG

  Avri Doria: (10:33) Can CSC trigger PRT and PRt trigger RFP processes?

  Matthew Shears: (10:33) we probably have to define what "a process" is in this context

  Chris Disspain: (10:33) Fair enough Donna

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:33) but we still to not know who has the responsiblity to make the decision to transform an escalation process triggered by the CSC into a full blown separation

  Chris Disspain: (10:33) I think we should loom at that

  Chris Disspain: (10:34) whoever trigger the process, I am very clear that only the Sos and ACs can press the button

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:34) +1 Chris

  Avri Doria: (10:34) no one to make fun of typos, but I like the verb To Loom

  Chris Disspain: (10:34) me too

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:34) :-)

  Chris Disspain: (10:34) I loom like a nice guy but am I really?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:34) but in what sense would SOs & ACs make that decision? There is clearly some work to be done there

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:35) Surely SOs and ACs need to decide how they decide themselves?  Or do you mean, how to synthesize the results?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:35) +1 Sharon!

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:35) @Andrew: how to synthesize

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:36) because SOs & ACs have been know to have different views in the past

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:36) Right.  That does seem an issue

  Chris Disspain: (10:36) OCL..I suppose my view is of they differing views there's no separation

  Avri Doria: (10:36) if we are into pollling shuld we also poll on PTI internal/external/hybrid

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:37) @Chris: so all ACs and SOs need to agree?  Effective veto, therefore

  Chris Disspain: (10:37) if any sub-group has the right to trigger it has to be the customers doesn't it>

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:37) I'm not opposed, but I've heard objections about that in previous cases

  jorge cancio GAC: (10:37) @Avri how do you imagine that?

  Chris Disspain: (10:37) That Andrew is the crux of the discussion we need to have

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:37) Completely agree with that

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:37) @ Olivier: We likely will deal with the responsibility for escalation in the C/M/N call tomorrow.

  Donna Austin: (10:38) In previous discussions regarding separation there was agreement that it could only be done if it was supported by the direct customers, and would only be done because of continued poor performance.

  Chris Disspain: (10:39) agree Jonathan

  Chris Disspain: (10:39) not now

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:39) @Chuck: good luck on the C/M/N call tomorrow - this is going to be very important. I would have joined but I am travelling

  Chris Disspain: (10:39) maybe a detailed note from Sidley on both of thoise would help

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:40) That might be a useful thing @Chris  yes

  Avri Doria: (10:42) my stmt was a conditional: if we are into polls ... then do two instead of one.  fine with not doing polls.

  Chris Disspain: (10:42) agree Jonathan

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:42) If we were WCIT we could have a poll about polling

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:43) Happy to compromis  *at this stage*

  Avri Doria: (10:43) oh, metapolling would tickle.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:43) Agree, i think we can claim a lot of progress in today's call. we've identified some areas to explore more deeply, but i don't think the direction toward legal separation has changed much.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:43) Jonathan,  would be helpful at some point in this discussion to clarify what you would like Sidley to do next to best help you 

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:44) Did we cover punch list item 10?

  Chris Disspain: (10:45) If we spun the CCWG off into a separate entity we could have a contract with them

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:47) Xavier didn't make any recommendations; he provided an analysis of the IANA FY15 budget.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:47) Correct Chuck

  Chris Disspain: (10:48) Guys...it's 0146 here and I have an 0700 ICANN Board Governance Committe call so I'm going to love you and leave you. It's been an amazing 2 days of hard work and fantastic progres...thanks!

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:48) @Holly. We can cover this on Thursday at Client Committee

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:49) Thank you Chris.

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:49) @Holly. Here is a high level:

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:49) 3.  Instructions to Sidley?a.    Filled out punch listb.   DT-C (CSC) – Adequacy of provision for Conflicts of Interest & Governancec.         Conditional Proposal Wording – Implied “Contract with the CCWG”

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:50) (a) Filled out punch list (b) DT-C (CSC) – Adequacy of provision for Conflicts of Interest & Governance (c) Conditional Proposal Wording – Implied “Contract with the CCWG”

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:51) On (b), I think we understand the request generally as it related to Antitrust./competition.  Is there anything beyond that in (b)?

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:51) That's correct Sharon.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:52) Jonathan, after the call it would be helpful to get an email with the Sidley instructions? 

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (10:53) Jonathan,  Would you like to have Sidley listening in on the call tomorrow?  I don't think we've been invited at this point.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:53) Jonathan, also description of minimum requirements for role/composition of PTI board?

  Avri Doria: (10:56) yay! yet another template.

  Donna Austin: (10:57) @Jonathan: I would agree to an independent Chair

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:57) Good idea Jonathan

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:58) for both for tomorrow's call

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:58) yes to Sidley in particular. It would be very helpful, as today has been so helpful

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:58) :-)

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:59) Thanks Olivier!

  Avri Doria: (10:59) yeah, leggal firms are stars, and really good at putting up with us.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (11:00) Sharon has done an amazing all nighter

  Allan MacGillivray: (11:00) Here, Here!

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:00) Happy to help -- I know you are all doing the same.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (11:00) bye all

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:00) Thanks everyone.

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (11:00) thanks everyone

  Matthew Shears: (11:00) yes bravo to the advisers

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (11:01) Avri, its our  pleasure

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (11:01) Kudos to the chairs for the leadership

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:01) Outcomes are indeed worth the efforts made :- )

  Brenden Kuerbis: (11:01) Thanks to advisors, co-chairs, eveyone else.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:01) Thanks for the great leadership!

  jorge cancio GAC: (11:01) thanks and bye

  Staffan Jonson: (11:01) Thank You all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:01) No escape just yet ;-)  Bye

  Andrew Sullivan: (11:01) bye all

  Matthew Shears: (11:01) thanks!

  Brenden Kuerbis: (11:01) bye

  bart boswinkel: (11:01) Bye all

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (11:01) bye.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (11:01) bye and thanks