Proposed Agenda 

1. Opening Remarks

2. Public comment

     a. FAQ update: FAQs to be included as part of final proposal

     b. Translations: the CWG-Stewardship could allow an extension until 26 May at 23:59 UTC for those dependent on translations. For these submissions, CWG-Stewardship requests a covering note explaining that the comments were dependent on translated versions. 

     c. Update on comments received (view them here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15/index.html) 

3. Punch List Review

4. Design Team Updates 

     a. DT-F

     b. DT-SR / DT-N

     c. Other?

5. Forward planning 

6. AOB

a. No call on Thursday

b. Sidley memo – Term Sheet          

7. Closing Remarks

Notes

Eduardo Diaz on audio only 

1. Opening Remarks

2. Public comment

a. FAQ update 

• • FAQs to be included as part of final proposal
  • Request for volunteers to assist with the work of FAQ drafting? None. 

b. Translations

• • The CWG-Stewardship could allow an extension until 26 May at 23:59 UTC for those dependent on translations. For these submissions, CWG-Stewardship requests a covering note explaining that the comments were dependent on translated versions. 
  • There should be no implication on the overall timeline since we do not anticipate that many comments are dependent on translations (only 1 submission during the first public comment was)

c. Update on comments received 

• • 11 submissions received to date
  • View them here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15/index.html

3. Punch List Review

• • Item 1: outstanding action item to receive feedback from ICANN Finance and Legal. Delaware LLC is proposed because it is more flexible of a structure (in the case that PTI would be designed like a PBC while maintaining LLC legal structure). 
  • Items 2-3: dependent on information from ICANN
  • Item 4: CWG to move forward with insider board but need to think further about specifics as to which offices to require as part of board composition (require PTI Executive Director, for example). 
  • Item 5: scope and responsibilities for the PTI need to be further outlined 
  • Items 6-10: under discussion in DT-N
  • Items 11-16: recommendations to be discussed with full CWG. 
  • Items 17-20: Sidley term sheet to be discussed under AOB and DT-A has a meeting on Friday 22 May to address item #20
  • Items 21-23: DT-M is meeting to discuss these items after the CWG call today
  • Items 24-29: under discussion in DT-N
  • Items 30-32: DT-F met prior to CWG meeting and the outcome of their discussions has not been included in the 'punch list' on screen
  • Items 33-36: awaiting feedback from CCWG-Accountability

4. Design Team Updates 

a. DT-SR/DT-N

• • SCWG is a separate group from the IFRT but with similar composition. 
  • Google doc: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
  • DT-SR/DT-N Punch List items: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jmdqJkl1X292h9kqjQcYh7gcAW81XhektbeMxADosE/edit?usp=sharing>
  • Work is expected to be finalized by next Tuesday's call

b. DT-F

• • Will have something by next week that can be included in proposal
  • Not fully fleshed out, but enough to be included

5. Forward planning 

Need to include SLE work as part of development of final draft

6. AOB

a. No call on Thursday

b. Sidley memo – Term Sheet   

Action: discuss Sidley memo – Term Sheet  at the meeting on Tuesday  

7. Closing Remarks

Action Items

Action: discuss Sidley memo – Term Sheet  at the meeting on Tuesday 

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #48 19 May.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #48 19 May.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7rdkgby1zs/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-19may15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (5/19/2015 11:34) Welcome all to the CWG IANA Meeting #48 on 19 May.

  Lise Fuhr: (11:56) Hello all

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (11:56) hello

  Seun Ojedeji: (11:56) hello everyone

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (11:57) Evening all

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (11:57) Hello Jaap

  Sivasubramanian M: (11:57) hello

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (11:59) good day

  Matthew Shears: (12:00) Hello

  Paul Kane: (12:02) Eve all

  Staffan Jonson: (12:02) Hello all

  Holly Gregory: (12:04) greetings

  Mary Uduma: (12:04) ////////evening Everyone

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:07) whats the implication of this on the overall timeline?

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:08) Okay then...thanks

  Kurt Pritz: (12:08) Extending the timeline will help eliminate criticism for the short comment period

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:11) @Kurt i would not worry much about that....but for translation maybe yes

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:12) I  think it is important that the comment extension for those dependent on translations be used by others to delay their submissions.

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:13) @Chuck. Agreed. Should not delay submissions of others.

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:13) i guess @Chuck meant NOT be used....

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support 2: (12:13) my mike is not workin

  Greg Shatan: (12:13) On the other hand, we should not reject comments that come in slightly late.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:13) I  think it is important that the comment extension for those dependent on translations NOT be used by others to delay their submissions.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:14) as I've said, several of our communities depend on translation. AFRALO & LACRALO come to mind

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:14) @Greg. Understood and the Chairs may need to exercise some discretion there whilst still retaining the current period.

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:15) AFRALO emailed me with their submissions yesterday @Olivier

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:15) I agree Greg - some might go a bit over the deadline

  Greg Shatan: (12:15) I doubt that any group is going to consciously "delay" their submission.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:15) We are pushing in the GAC for comments - just to let you know..

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:16) thats correct @Olivier, we really had a tough time with that within AFRALO

  Mary Uduma: (12:16) Same with AFTLD

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:16) @Grace the submission from AFRALO though was sent but did not receive much input from non-english folks due to translation issue

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:17) Ah, I see @Seun.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:18) Is there a distinction between an LLC in California and and LLC in Delaware?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:19) but it is possible to have an LLC in California?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:20) Interesting point Greg.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:20) but you can get diversity with PBC  form too. ie. locate it elsewhere

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:20) ?

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:21) thx

  Sivasubramanian M: (12:21) Could this Delaware LLC be incorporated as a subsidiary or holding company of ICANN?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:21) @ Greg - Agreed

  Greg Shatan: (12:22) Holding company would be "above" ICANN...

  Greg Shatan: (12:22) Not something we have thought about.

  Sivasubramanian M: (12:22) Greg I meant below ICANN. It was a slip

  Greg Shatan: (12:23) Then it would not be a holding company, as that would be generally understood.

  Greg Shatan: (12:23) Unless it is in turn holding an entity below it.  And again, not anything we have or need to consider.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:23) NB: PTI as an LLC is a "subsidiary" of ICANN.  PTI as a PBC is an "affiliate" of ICANN.  More of a legal distinction than a practical one.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:24) @Greg +1

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:25) Would have concerns about too many layers of oversight - hard to understand who is answerable to whom

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:25) This internal board needs further clarification, whats the essense of PTI if its board will be filled by ICANN staff. Secondly does this mean CCWG ability to remove ICANN board for instance will also work on PTI board?

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:25) Is there a part of ICANN that is not interesting @Greg ;-)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:26) And boring is good in this case:  no excitment in the boardroom

  Matthew Shears: (12:26) have we outlined how those inisder board members will be appinted and by whom?

  Sivasubramanian M: (12:26) ++1 Greg on the idea of a small and boring board

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:26) @Seun - we could provide that if an ICANN director serves on PTI Board and the director is removed from ICANN's board, then he/she must also resign from PTI.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:26) I want to confirm what Greg said: Insiders must be appointed by ICANN but need not be ICANN employees or directors.  Is that correct?

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:27) @Matthew. By definition, the insider board is majority appointed by ICANN.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:27) @ Chuck - yes.  Most subsidiaries would be populated with parent employees unless a statutory reason to do otherwise (ie. local law requirement)

  Kurt Pritz: (12:27) Board members should understand and be strong supporters of the multistakeholder model. Then, if they do something "interesting" it would be toward maintaining independence from governments - and help achieve the NTIA objective with regard to avoiding government take over

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:28) Thanks Sharon and Greg.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:28) @Sharon, not sure i understood point Greg made about PBCs. PBCs can exist in other states, correct? Is it that they are defined differently across states?

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:28) @Sharon okay thats fine for ICANN board, i am more concerned about ICANN staff that happens to be a board member of PTI

  Holly Gregory: (12:28) The closer the PTI board is to a pure insider board selected by ICANN from among ICANN employees, the better the ability of the ICANN accountability mechanisms to impact PTI

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:28) @ Brenden - non-profits exist in other states, but there is logic is maintaining same non-profit structure that ICANN has (California) if PBC is preferred route

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:29) because PBC statutes differ state by state

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:29) thx

  Matthew Shears: (12:29) Just to understand are we saying that ICANN staff will populate the PTI Board?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:30) +1 @ Holly.

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:30) @Holly. Thank you. That link to ICANN accountability was a key point in the previous discussion. It is helpful to be reminded.

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:30) +1 to Matthew's question

  Holly Gregory: (12:31) best accountability is to have ICANN employees serve on the PTI board, appointed by ICANN

  Milton Mueller: (12:31) Holly,

  Milton Mueller: (12:31) that offers the least accountability

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:31) A follow up to the question for me is how does CCWG board accountability mechanism work on PTI board. Who removes/appoints board members?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:31) we had a lot of questions on the role of the PTI board also in the GAC - so we need to have a very limited and clear role for this board if it should "not be interesting" for gouvernemnts to have an opinion on it

  Christopher Wilkinson: (12:31) @Matthew I thought that had been settled: PTI must be multistakeholder. If it is appointed by ICANN with ICANN staff, then why would one need it atall? CW

  Matthew Shears: (12:31) so ICANN sleected does not necesaily mean ICANN staff

  Milton Mueller: (12:31) I don't agree with that point, Lise

  Holly Gregory: (12:32) Milton, it offers the most accountability because all the new accountability mechanisms will apply

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:32) @ Matthew - yes, but see also Holly's point re link to ICANN accountability which I also think is important

  Greg Shatan: (12:32) @Brendan, there are non-profit corporations in other states that are roughly similar to the California PBC.  The term "Public Benefit Corporation" means very different things in, e.g., New York and Delaware..  In NY, a "public benefit corporation" is a quasi-private public entity, like the Metropolian Transit Authority, which runs NYC subways and buses.  Nothing to do with private non-profit entities.

  Milton Mueller: (12:32) All the new accountability mechanisms pertain to the poliucy process, not to IANA gove3rnance

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:32) It seems to me that being too prescriptive about who can be PTI board members might limit flexibility go appoint the best qualified overall.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:33) @ Milton - accountability at ICANN would cover all their activities, and that coudl include the appointment of the PTI Board if that is within their mandate

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:33) Question: How does CCWG board accountability mechanism work on PTI board. Who removes/appoints board members?

  Holly Gregory: (12:33) if the community has ability to hold ICANN accountable that flows through to PTI only if ICANN  controls PTI board

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:33) @Chuck. Agreed and that is why I was a littel hesitant about embracing that too firmly.

  Christopher Wilkinson: (12:33) NB: Adobe voice audio nt fuctioning here.

  Matthew Shears: (12:34) What if the public commnent comes back and suggests that an outisder Board is preferable?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:34) @ Milton: It is not my understanding the accountability mechanisms only apply to policy process.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:34) Sharon - can we make sure that the PTI board doesent deside to grow in number and function in the long run ?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:35) @ Seun - if ICANN appoints PTI Board members and the community is not happy with those choices and how PTI is managed, the membership body of ICANN can replace the ICANN board who would then appoint new PTI board members.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:35) There's another argument that day to day PTI would be better informed by a board that is composed of individuals with  direct links to names, numbers and protocols communities. They could even come from within ICANN structures, e.g., ASO, IETF liaison, in addition to ccNSO and GNSO.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:36) @Elise - yes, we can be specific in the ICANN bylaws on what the structure of board is -- i.e., it will be 3 members.

  Matthew Shears: (12:36) @Sharon that seems an over the top reponse for such an issue

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:36) Oh....@Sharon...now i get the flowchart....quite long though and not direct community powers on PTI. Thanks

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:37) Agreed it's a drastic step but it has a deterrent effect -- if the ICANN board knows it is possible to be removed, there is a powerful incentive to listen to the community

  Milton Mueller: (12:37) Sharon, that response demonstrates the absurdity of relying on general accountability measures for IANA

  Sivasubramanian M: (12:37) @ Milton   The general accountablity measures could include as a specific component, a defined accountability process to review how ICANN community and Board organizes and directs the IANA functions. That way, the required attention to the IANA accountability needs are covered without a separate IANA acccountability process

  Milton Mueller: (12:37) There will never be a credible threat to replace the entire board because of IANA problems, until and unless IANA is literally detroying the entire regime

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:37) @Brenden that would have been preferred....populate PTI with those community members, disable the need for contract and let ICANN grow in accountability ;-)

  Matthew Shears: (12:37) If there is support for the insider board then we need to ensure that those insiders are re;presenttive of the ICANN community and not just staff

  Matthew Shears: (12:38) just like the ICANN Board

  Milton Mueller: (12:38) Right, Matthew, if we are going to be stuck with an insider  board then the rules need to specify that, e.g., one is the IETF liaison, another is ASO, etc

  Matthew Shears: (12:39) + 1

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:40) Well picking from the community could create a huge PTI board

  Milton Mueller: (12:40) Well then let's not have an insider board

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:40) if you are going to build an insider Board that has both ICANN staff members plus have representatives of many of the ICANN communitites, you risk having a PTI Board that has more members than the number of employees of PTI. that would be strange.

  Milton Mueller: (12:41) so we definitely should have an outsider board

  Paul Kane: (12:41) It would be wrong for the ICANN Board to select the PTI Board - but it would be appropriate for the AC and SO's to select the Members - like the selection of ICANN Board

  Greg Shatan: (12:41) @Paul, then PTI is no longer controlled by ICANN, and is no longer an "affiliate".

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:42) @Greg - I agree with that comment.  Technically an affiliate but ICANN no longer exerts any control over PTI in that scenario (or very little)

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:42) In the case of ICANN directors, some of them come from areas of the community while still being insiders. (e.g.,  director selected by  the contracted parties of the GNSO).

  Milton Mueller: (12:42) agree Martin

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:43) I agree, PTI is about implementing registries for names, numbers, protocols and its board should reflect that. Not all the diversity that exists within one of those three communities.

  Milton Mueller: (12:43) but representation of the different IANA functions (names, numbers protocols) is not a re-creation of the MS board of ICANN

  Greg Shatan: (12:43) Chuck, I don't think I would call those insiders.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:43) +1 Martin.  Confusion would be an issue with two boards structured that way (see our stress test memo on this point)

  Matthew Shears: (12:43) Agree Milton

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:43) Better still PTI board could be a committee of ICANN board. I don't know how that would flow with same ICANN board awarding contract to PTI.

  Avri Doria: (12:43) i was trying to understand the definitions and tried to make that clear.

  Paul Kane: (12:44) Can we distinguish between the IANA operator staff and the PTI Board to whom the staff are accountable

  Avri Doria: (12:45) so one advantage of the LLC is it doesn't really need a board.

  Seun Ojedeji: (12:45) I believe noting is finalised yet until after PC

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:45) @ Seun - PTI Board could be a subset of ICANN board; however, more typically in a parent/subsidiary structure is to appoint senior management of Parent as they usually are best able to exercise operational oversight on the subsidiary

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:46) @Avri - correct.  LLC does not require a board, but it could have one that mirrors a PBC structure.

  Milton Mueller: (12:46) why is that an advantage, Avri?

  Matthew Shears: (12:46) + 1 Greg - need to agree functions

  Paul Kane: (12:46) Many ccTLD registries are not subject to ICANN Policy nor impacted by ICANN, ICANN is a serivce provider

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:46) @ Greg:  They insiders from ICANN's point of view.

  Avri Doria: (12:46) if the board is going to be a puppet of the the ICANN Board, why have a board and not just a manager..

  Paul Kane: (12:47) Good point Avri -  I am struggling to see how the PTI manager would trigger a seperation

  Brenden Kuerbis: (12:47) Not really Greg, just implementing registries according to the policies set by ICANN, IETF, RIRs per contract(s).

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:47) To be clear, board members of the PTI would still owe fiduciary duties to PTI as a matter of law (if a PBC and could be replicated in an LLC)

  Milton Mueller: (12:47) Avri: If it is going to be a LLC puppet, why not just have it be an independent contractor?

  Avri Doria: (12:47) Paul, I do not think it is envisaged to trigger a separation.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:47) @ Paul:  the PTI Board does not trigger separation

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:47) unless it really screws up - and then it is a re-bid

  Avri Doria: (12:48) Milton, just tyring to understand the defintions and nature of the entities.

  Matthew Shears: (12:48) but the funcitons of the board can be boring but the representation slightly more diverse than just ICANN staff

  Avri Doria: (12:49) my questions are meant to help me understand not to indicate preferences.

  Greg Shatan: (12:49) Not sure what the point of diverse representation would be, other than window dressing.

  Milton Mueller: (12:49) I know, Avri,

  Greg Shatan: (12:49) If we could have mannequins on the PTI board, that would be ideal, from the point of creating a "boring" board.

  Milton Mueller: (12:49) Chuck: why is contract, IFR, CSC not enough accountability?

  Greg Shatan: (12:52) @Avri, can't just have a manager - a PBC must have a board, by statute.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:52) Notwithstanding the comments made, the IANA Dept. must be able to continue as it currently does and this should be a primary factor  or consideration in deciding the role of the board and subsequently the composition.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:52) @greg: there used to be a saying "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." perhaps can we populate the PTI Board with Snoopy, Spot and Rex. :-)

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:52) @ Greg - I think Avri was referring to LLC structure

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:53) @ Milton:  If a gTLD registry's TLD is not delegated or re-delegated or removed from the root,  they should be able to use the IRP,

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:53) @Donna +1

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:55) @ Milton:  If the IFRT decides that the IFO needs to be changed, only ICANN can do that.

  Greg Shatan: (12:56) My understanding is that an LLC with a non-profit  as its sole member is tax exempt because its sole member is tax exempt. (The LLC is a "disregarded entity" for tax purposes.  [Caveat: this is not tax advice, legal advice and particularly is not tax law advice.]

  Paul Kane: (12:56) I perfer that the contractor IS ICANN but the Stewardship is the role of the PTI Baord.  Ie dormant until the CSC/Review Board says the contractor has failed to perform - which is likely

  Paul Kane: (12:56) which is UNlikely

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:58) @Paul:  I think stewardship is in icann

  Milton Mueller: (12:58) Yes

  Milton Mueller: (12:59) No, PTI is not Contract Co

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:59) IFR tells icann that its PTI is failing and it needs to find a new contractor

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:59) +1 Jonathan.  With an outsider board, the practical effect is PTI as outside of ICANN

  Greg Shatan: (13:00) Our proposal posits an internal IANA.  We should not re-open discussion of that unless and until we see the results of the public comment period.  If the internal PTI is rejected by significant number of commenters, we have to revisit this issue.  Otherwise not.

  Greg Shatan: (13:00) I do agree that "external PTI" is not Contract Co.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:01) It's a different version of an exeternal model

  Greg Shatan: (13:01) Insider is appointed by ICANN the corporation in its discretion.

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:01) @Milton / Greg. I can accept that. It's probably more accurate to use wors such as those of Sharon above.

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:01) wors = words

  Greg Shatan: (13:02) ICANN "insiders" in the philosophical sense is a completely different concept.  We may ALL be insiders by some definition, but not the relevant definitiion.

  Milton Mueller: (13:02) Sharon, it's not "external" in the way Contract Co was. The stewardship remains with ICANN.

  Milton Mueller: (13:02) It's playing with words to suggest otherwise

  Greg Shatan: (13:03) The issue is whether PTI stays within the ICANN enterprise or sits outside of it.

  Milton Mueller: (13:03) e.g., to say, "we rejected an external (Contract Co) model ergo we cannot have a PTI with an outside board" is an logical fallacy

  Matthew Shears: (13:04) + 1 Milton

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:04) I guess Greg asked the important question which i think has been answered a long time.... PTI stays within ICANN

  Alan Greenberg: (13:05) Sorry to be late.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:07) @Christopher:  monthly call to read the monthly reports and ask any necessary questions

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:07) an easy month is 5 minutes:  all targets have been met

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:07) @ Christopher:  There are monthly reports to review.  That is what NTIA does now.  CSC is replacing that.

  Matthew Shears: (13:08) + 1 Chuck and Martin

  Staffan Jonson: (13:08) + 1 Chuck and Martin

  Greg Shatan: (13:09) +1 to Chuck.  Also don't think that there's any assumption that the goal is to "find fault."  It's job is to verify there is no "fault."

  Kurt Pritz: (13:09) @ Christopher: SOME entity has to be charged with monitoring IANA performance and the CSC is the ONLY monitoring organization to replace the NTIA. If you want to diminish the CSC role, some other entity should be in place to perform continual monitoring.

  Staffan Jonson: (13:09) Also agree that Raison d'etre is more than finding faults in operations.

  Staffan Jonson: (13:09) I percieve the CSC function more constructive

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:10) @Donna:  fully agree

  Greg Shatan: (13:10) Also +1 to Martin (and Staffan and Kurt).

  Christopher Wilkinson: (13:10) No further comments at this stage. Thankyou, Donna.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:12) @Chuck:  no.  Monitoring and if necessary working with PTI to resolve any issues

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:12) So a bit more than you are attributing

  Milton Mueller: (13:13) support what, Lise, exactly?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:14) lets wait for the comments

  Milton Mueller: (13:14) yes, although doubtful many comments will address that level of detail

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:16) agree, Milton, - but as a working method - e dont support before we have the comments

  Milton Mueller: (13:16) yes

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:17) @Avri - can you elaborate on #27 -- how team would be different and for what purpose

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:20) @Avri:  I'm still not clear what the separation team does

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:21) one point to add to avri's summary: we also thought that there are different skills entailed in managing the review process and managing an RFP process so the relevant communities would likely want different representatives

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:21) Apologies.  Didn't realize we were coming back to it.  I wanted to comment on CCWG linkage on this too when appropriate.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:22) there are a couple of differences to, for the separation community group there is also the possibility of a liaison from the review team, and also a liaison from the numbering and protocol communities

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:22) Punch list: can be found at:<https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jmdqJkl1X292h9kqjQcYh7gcAW81XhektbeMxADosE/edit?usp=sharing>

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:22) so it is not the same exactly, and i will update

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:22) @Stephanie, did you have any discussion about ICANN managing the RFP with input from the community?

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:22) I should cllarify that this is the DT-SR/DT-N Punch List

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:23) document is unsynced

  Greg Shatan: (13:23) FYI -- SCWG is pronounced "squig" (or "skwig")

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:24) @donna -- no, the agreed starting point was that this was to be a community-led process

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:25) @grace - can we get a copy of this document and any other outputs from the design teams? Thanks

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:26) Yes @Sharon. These are Google docs. I will send you the links

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:26) Other DTs do not have any new output at this time

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:26) I think we will see that there are a lot of opinions about the fact that special IFR determines that the separation is necessary before we actually get the whole and real Multistakeholder Communety on board

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:26) Ah:  writing the RfP:  that's fine

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:27) But is that really the right mix to write a RfP?

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:27) hi elise - the special IFR team is also multistakeholder in composition

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:28) and comment periods are also expected as part of that process

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:28) I'm going to need to drop off shortly, but I am concerned at:  very small ccNSO representation cf the GNSO

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:29) ok - but it says Special IFR triggered by a supermajority of ccNSO and GNSO

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:29) I think we would need to look at AC/SO process, but it shoud focus on defining the RfP - what is operationally needed

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:29) (Essentially mainly writing the SOW)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:33) Sorry, got to go, bye all

  Lise Fuhr: (13:34) Bye Martin

  Milton Mueller: (13:35) So we reach a crisis, and we form a committee that deliberates for XX months?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:35) Couldn't it be a Special or Periodic Review that results in a separation process?

  Matthew Shears: (13:35) I agree Chuck

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:35) Seem like part of the role of IFRT is now moved to SCWG

  Greg Shatan: (13:35) I think either a Special or Periodic Review could result in a separation process.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:37) the team coming  up with the recommendation (SIFRT) is a MS team, and it comes up with what the recommendation is, which could be separation or something else

  Brenden Kuerbis: (13:37) I agree, just different options for the group undertaking a review

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:38) @Stepahnie which one is SIFRT?

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:38) the first part of the process "Special IANA FUnction Review"

  Greg Shatan: (13:39) @Avri, glad I clear that up.

  Greg Shatan: (13:40) I don't see this as complex at all.  Of course "you" fire them, but here "you" needs to be a multistakeholder process.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:40) How is SIFRT pronounced?  :)

  Greg Shatan: (13:40) This is not a "separation review".  It is a separation process.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:40) it is not a "separation review" necessarily -- it is a special review because it is a review that is being called for out of the periodic cycle

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:40) okay so there is no T in that. Meanwhile i hope we are noting that this is a significant introduction (the SCWG) that may put us to more public comment. Honestly speaking i am yet to understand why IFRT can't be triggered instead of the SCWG. Isn't SCWG MS enough?

  Greg Shatan: (13:40) @Chuck - "Siffert," of course.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:41) the T was for team, because i was talking about  the body carrying it out :)

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:41) @Stephanie so we have SIFRT, SCWG, and IFRT

  Milton Mueller: (13:42) good

  Greg Shatan: (13:42) Probably could have PIFRT, to distinguish it from SIFRT.  ("Piffert")

  Paul Kane: (13:42) Who picks a new operator - the PTI which is IANA staff?

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:42) Good job...head spinning with structures, acronynms right now ;-)

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:42) the SIFRT and IFRT are in essence the same -- just that it is called out of cycle  for a specific performance issue

  Stephanie Duchesneau (neustar): (13:42) but yes ;)

  Paul Kane: (13:43) This is FAR too complicated

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:43) @Paul, if there is a new operator PTI is dissolved.

  Milton Mueller: (13:43) SIFRT, SCWG, IFRT, PIFRT are all the same thing? ;-)

  Brenden Kuerbis: (13:44) Just happening at different times

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:44) I am not sure it is all that complicated.

  Paul Kane: (13:44) Donna - who awards the contract to the new operator?

  Christopher Wilkinson: (13:44) Where did all this complexity come from in the first place?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:44) @Paul, i believe ICANN would

  Milton Mueller: (13:44) famous last words: "it's not confusing, it's just ICANN"

  Greg Shatan: (13:45) SIFRT and PIFRT are both IFRTs -- they do reviews ("Special" or "Periodic'). SCWG does the separation process.

  Paul Kane: (13:45) Why would they do that - I hope that ICANN endorses its own staff (in)action .... which triggered the issue in the first place ...

  Christopher Wilkinson: (13:45) Have to leave the call. Good evening. CW

  Milton Mueller: (13:45) really

  Milton Mueller: (13:45) (one name)

  Brenden Kuerbis: (13:45) it's probably easier to just describe the committee composition once

  Greg Shatan: (13:45) It's periodic in the sense that it happens periodically, on a schedule.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (13:45) and the conditions under which it comes into existence

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:46) @Avri are you saying the composition of IFRT and SCWG may be different? and will both of them work at the same time i.e one reporting to one?

  Greg Shatan: (13:47) "Composition" is the same.  People are different.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:47) Regarding composition: it would be useful if the purpose is to develop an RFP, that the people populating the SCWG have the relevant expertise.

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:48) @Greg so thats the confusion for me, why do we need different people again.....i mean why do we need a different group and not same group since the group will be engaging the community....is this a fear of capture or what?

  Greg Shatan: (13:48) I think the fear of incompetent or unqualified volunteers is relevant, but can be overblown. 

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:49) of cource Donna....

  Greg Shatan: (13:49) @Seun, not absolutely necessary, but useful to avoid aggregation of power.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (13:49) have to run, thanks all

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:50) @Chuck if expertise on developing RFP is required then IFRT should empoy someone to do that....just like we are engaging Sidley

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:51) People I talk to are a bit suprised by the view that we have a problem with incompetent people wanting a seat

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:52) SCWG would need to be added.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:53) Currently any body that CWG is creating - IFRT, CSC, etc. is required to be constituted as a fundamental bylaw of ICANN.  To the extent new bodies are added (like SCWG), we will want to add those too

  Avri Doria: (13:54) Chuck did yu say we had a DT-M meeting after this one ends?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:54) 30 minutes after this ends

  Avri Doria: (13:54) eeek

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:55) 2nd eeek!

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:55) Thanks for that head-up @Sharon which then begs the need to have such new structure....IFRT can always consitute an ah-hoc committee to achieve SCWG goal if they wish

  Greg Shatan: (13:55) I sometimes fear that "relevant expertise" is being used as code for "registries".

  Greg Shatan: (13:56) @Seun, I would not want an "ad hoc committee" used for something as game changing as getting rid of the IANA Function team and outsourcing it.

  Greg Shatan: (13:57) In any event, ad hoc committees need to be designed on the fly, which takes more time.  Much more useful to have a blueprint ready to go.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:57) @ Greg:  In the case of  GNSO consensus policies it often means registries and registrars because they have to implement them but it is not restricted to them.

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:57) Most likely i will be unavailable for the intensive meeting next week (Its AIS week and i think most of us in Africa will be at that event)

  Greg Shatan: (13:58) @Seun - 1.1 billion people?  Getting hotel rooms will be an issue.  :-)

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:58) @Greg my concern is the multiple structure we are creating and defining in the bylaw

  Greg Shatan: (13:58) We are not creating them now,  only when needed.  Better to have them pre-defined.

  Seun Ojedeji: (13:58) edit= most of us from Africa, participating in this process..... ;-) @Greg

  Greg Shatan: (13:59) @Seun, phew, much relieved.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (14:00) I have to drop now for another call.  Thanks

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (14:02) Keeping Adobe open if any follow up required from Sidley, please send a note. Thx

  Greg Shatan: (14:04) And not really multiple -- the IFRT is the same structure, only the trigger is different (calendar vs. problem).

  Greg Shatan: (14:05) This is really an implementation issue.

  Seun Ojedeji: (14:05) okay i have to go now

  Seun Ojedeji: (14:05) thanks a lot

  Seun Ojedeji: (14:05) bye

  Paul Kane: (14:06) I agree - and that doc is DONE

  Greg Shatan: (14:07) I am looking forward to review the Sidley term sheet! :-)

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:07) Thanks everyone.

  Greg Shatan: (14:08) Bye, all.

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (14:08) thanks, bye

  Staffan Jonson: (14:08) Thank You all

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (14:08) bye all

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (14:08) bye bye

  Sivasubramanian M: (14:08) bye