Proposed Agenda 

1. Opening Remarks

2. Update on Public Comments

    a. Mechanics & process

    b. Implications for Design Teams/ CWG (whole)

    c. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses

3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal 

4. 2nd Reading of Final Proposal 

5. CCWG-Accountability 

   a. Phrasing conditionality in the CWG Proposal 

   b. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment close on 3 June 

6. Overall Timeline / Milestones

    a. Communications

    b. Webinars on 11 June

    c. Sessions at ICANN 53

7. Client Committee - Instructions to Sidley

8. AOB

9. Closing Remarks

Notes

1. Opening Remarks

• Majority of meeting will be focused on item 4 (recent edits, changes, etc)
• Be sure that the essence is captured (staff can assist with wording)

2. Update on Public Comments

• Mechanics & process: broke down by sections of the document. 
• Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses: basing the document as of June 1st before the first draft final version was sent out. 
• Lengthy 250-page document, but we will make sure everyone will have time to review

4. 2nd Reading of Final Proposal 

• This version includes Avri, Greg and most of Sidley
• Edit footnote 3 (related to paragraph 105): The CSC is not a legal entity. (second sentence: switch "or" to "and") 
• In IFR section (and Annex F), "Periodic reviews should occur at no more than five-year intervals."
• If a Special review occurs within a short period, allow for some flexibility 
• Para 123: needs to be internally consistent and checked for relevant position in the document (ref: that CSC is further defined later in document, for example)
• Question of escalation to GNSO
• SLEs will be updated and submitted along with proposal( but perhaps not as extensive as was presented in Istanbul)
• Paragraph 141: "or equivalent community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process" (possible to bracket/footnote different points in the text)
• Paragraph 167: staff assets and coherence of PTI is important, but not sure that the last sentence adds clarity yet. 
• Paragraph 170: Not accurate that CSC is multistakeholder (remove the word and use 'customer-based instead)
• Add footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is currently in Annex to section II, so duplication here would be helpful)
• Paragraph 275: composition of IFRT does not have extra RySG member (only the SCWG does)
• Annex S: Term sheet would be the subject of negotiation between PTI and ICANN (with PTI having independent advice). This term sheet is an example/draft and precursor to the ICANN-PTI Contract. ---> use the word "sample" instead of "draft"

Further reading of the document on Tuesday but there is a deadline cut-off on Sunday 7 June for comments/edits. 

Action: Staff will send a stable document version by end of day Thursday. 

Action (Grace): edit Webinar announcement to make clear that, at the time of the webinars, we will have provided the final version 

Action Items

Action: Staff will send a stable document version by end of day Thursday. 

Action (Grace): edit Webinar announcement to make clear that, at the time of the webinars, we will have provided the final version 

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #57 4 June.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #57 4 June.pdf

Recordings

The AC recording may be found here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7eyxwqhq0t/

The MP3 recording link may be found here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-04jun15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (6/4/2015 05:39) Welcome all to the CWG IANA Meeting #57 on 4 June 2015.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:57) hi all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:57) noisy typist!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (05:57) mikes on mute please

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (05:57) at least my audio is working well!

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (05:57) ¡Hola a todos!

  Keith ccNSO: (05:58) Hi all

  Andrew Sullivan: (05:59) Good day everyone

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (05:59) Hi All

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (05:59) Good afternoon...

  Lise Fuhr: (06:00) Hi all not on audio yet

  Staffan Jonson: (06:01) Hello all

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (06:02) Good morning?!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:04) Good Morning, all, and happy 4 am to Josh....

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:13) I also did a huge amount of proofreading on this version, so you will see lots of minor changes in punctuation for example.

  Andrew Sullivan: (06:15) I swear there is a peculiar circle of hell where all shared-editing environments reside

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:15) Yes, and Marika and I live there right now

  Paul Kane: (06:16) Hello all

  Marika Konings: (06:16) Avri, Greg and Sidley, if you do notice any comments / edits that were not captured, please flag those. I do hope compare versions did the trick, but I did not have time to go back and confirm.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:17) At some point, one must accept track changes and move on to the next version.  Unfortunately, that time was decided by the software rather than the operator....

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:17) Has this version 3 been circulated?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:17) Is increasing a teeny bit  more possible please?

  Marika Konings: (06:17) @Greg - no, as it is not 'complete' yet, we thought it would be better to incorporate all edits / changes and then share it with the CWG.

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:17) If this good Martin?

  Marika Konings: (06:17) but if someone would like to have a copy to follow along, I am happy to send it.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:18) much better

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:18) thanks

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:18) thanks

  Andrew Sullivan: (06:22) The ¶ numbering showed up really funny in the version I reviewed, such that it seemed to interfere with some of the other numbering.  It could be that if I had MS Word on Windows that wouldn't be true

  Marika Konings: (06:23) Paragraph numbers have changed

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (06:25) That's right

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (06:26) As we go I will flag anything we thought worthy of discussion

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:28) committee within ICANN recognised in the bylaws and SOW

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (06:28) Agree with Donna. 

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:28) +1

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (06:28) It's still independent though

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:28) yes

  Staffan Jonson: (06:29) To me ICANN (via PTI) provide secratariat function to CSC, whereas members in CSC is nominated by SO:s

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:29) the CSC Charter is the governing or constitutional document

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (06:30) And it's fundamental nature prevents ICANN from altering it unilaterally

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:30) Not sure why secretariat needs to be "via PTI".

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (06:30) That's right Alan

  Staffan Jonson: (06:30) So indepencdence is defined by a) Charter, and b) nomination of members by external to ICANN ORG:s

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:30) I think that is the same.

  Staffan Jonson: (06:31) CSC is hosted by ICANN in similar ways as IETF is hosted by ISOC

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:31) independent in its deliberations, not in its home.

  Staffan Jonson: (06:31) Greg: yup it has some ambuigity, but it is a good way forward

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:32) agree with Sharon on interpretation of independent

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:34) What about "independent in performing its function"?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:35) I like the way Greg desribed independent above.

  Avri Doria: (06:35) ok, it was my understanding of an ambiguity compounded with the issue of where the secretariat came from.  i am fine with this interpretation.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:35) I think we should take out "The CSC would not need to be a legal entety" - it`s confusing to hint that it could be..

  Jonathan Robinson: (06:35) Plese refer to paragraph numbers if possible so I can locate for all of us in the document

  Alan Greenberg: (06:36) Indepenent of deliberations (EXACTLY like the ALAC or GAC or SSAC) is fine. But we should use wording that implies that.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:36) Agree with Elise.  or we could just say CSC is not a legal entity..

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:37) Greg - Agree, - lets make that clear

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:37) How's this? Status of CSC: it's an independent (in the sense that it controls its own mandate and deliberations) committee recognized in the ICANN Bylaws. The CSC is not a legal entity

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:38) Grace - ok

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:38) Will the secretariat be an existing IANA staff member?  If not, what expertise could they have? And what expertise do we expect a secretariat to have?

  Avri Doria: (06:38) are you kidding? our secretariats know everything.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (06:38) Grace - I don't think we need the first sentence.  The composition is clear from the charter. 

  Grace Abuhamad: (06:39) all secretariat support undergo intense special ops training @Greg

  Alan Greenberg: (06:39) @Grace, it only controls its mandate with respect to monitoring PTI and related follow-ons. It has a very constrained mandate outside of that.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:39) @Greg, that would be our assumption

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:39) I am not convinced that it matters very much whether the CSC Secretariat is from PTI or ICANN.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:39) Certainly anyone functioning as secretariat will have access to PTI's resources..

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:39) We are dancing on the head of a pin.

  Lise Fuhr: (06:39) @Greg I think we shouldn't get into too many details

  Avri Doria: (06:40) Greg: we are angels?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:40) Lise , - sometimes we need to :)

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:40) @Avri, either we are angels or pinheads.  Not sure which.

  Lise Fuhr: (06:41) @Elise yes but not regarding secretariat expertise

  Avri Doria: (06:41) yes, some previous policy implmentations have tought us about the need for much more detail in recommendations.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:41) footote 3 has a 'or' I thought this should be 'and'

  Donna Austin, RySG: (06:41) @Jonathan: optimal is best

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:41) and/or

  Staffan Jonson: (06:42) It is in my mind reasonable that secretariat come frpm IANA function.

  Staffan Jonson: (06:42) Otherways agree with Jonathan and MArtins explanantions

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:46) @ Avri:  I like the softer wording, i.e., no more than 5 years.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:46) "at least five years at most" was an impenetrable phrase.. 

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (06:46) The softer wording leaves it open.  At some point it will need to be decided so the documents reflect what is required to occur

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:47) I don't think special review should change the 5 year clock.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (06:47) Periodic reviews should not be impacted by Special reviews.

  Andrew Sullivan: (06:47) The last version I read said that special reviews were limited in scope

  Andrew Sullivan: (06:47) so they won't cover everything a periodic review does

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:47) Though softer language leaves the possiblity open.

  Andrew Sullivan: (06:47) I don't care, but it seems there'd be a gap in that case

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:48) Chuck,  - agree. Periodic reviews should stand on its own feet

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:48) Yep, special review is not a complete substitute for a periodic review.

  Marika Konings: (06:49) I think based on the edits suggested, the current draft suggests that there is a reset of the clock after an SIFR

  Lise Fuhr: (06:50) @Jonathan I think we should restart the cycle - 2 years after

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:50) if it were no more than 5 years, we can make it appropriate timing

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:50) risk of over-reviewing

  Staffan Jonson: (06:50) Agree that Periodic reviews are more general and SIFR are more narrowly defined for a speicifc function

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:50) I would rather build in some flexibility than decide now.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:50) in a vacuum.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:51) Periodic review is more complete  - It should follow its own set timeline -

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:51) Agree with Martin, we are starting to overbeat the cream.  We will end up with butter, which is not better.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:51) depends what you are doing with it!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:52) True, but if you are aiming for whipped cream, butter is a suboptimal result. Especially when it takes more work than whipped cream.

  Avri Doria: (06:53) i do not think dealing with these issues is overdoing it.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:53) yes:  more flexible the better

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:53) then we know if we want butter or whipped cream!

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (06:53) Fundamentally, we may want to draft with some flexibility, rather than trying to front-run every decision point.

  Avri Doria: (06:53) these are the kinds of details peole seem to get confused on.  and this is a final draft.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (06:53) I think looser language then, - and lets see what

  Lise Fuhr: (06:53) No strong feeling against being flexible

  Staffan Jonson: (06:53) flexible is good

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:54) siunds good Jonathan

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (06:54) *sounds

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:01) could 'occur' rather than 'trigger' in the first instance

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:03) not my call, but rysg rather than the gnso seems sensible

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:03) (as a cctld meddling in gtld issues :-) )

  Alan Greenberg: (07:05) I was not comparing ccNSO to GNSO, it was a GNSO-centric issue

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (07:07) If that is the case the argument of  separating operations from policy is less strong

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:07) +1 to Avri.  I'll join you at the edge of that ditch.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:09) (as a policy-obsessed non-registry stakeholder meddling in something other than gTLD policy)

  Alan Greenberg: (07:10) There is a large difference between being allowed to make comments and being part of the decision process. This particular comment is an example. The ALAC, GAC, SSAC and others are not part of the GNSO or the GNSO Council.

  Avri Doria: (07:11) ALAC is a very strong part of the GNSO Council

  Avri Doria: (07:12) historically I can think of not stronger influence on the GNSO than the ALAC laisions have.

  Avri Doria: (07:14) they are all iincludes n the SIFR that makes the recommendations.

  Alan Greenberg: (07:18) @Arvi, and I can think of cases where the inability to make motions (and implicitly vote) has resulted in very different outcomes.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:19) @ Alan:  As you would know, as a registry I had no problem with using the RySG instead of the full GNSO in the escalation process but from the point of view of the broader GNSO I support Avri's point that all of the gTLD stakeholders should be involved.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:20) All the GNSO would be doing regarding escalation is deciding whether to recommend going to the next step in the process.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:22) I think Chuck's remarks above highlight the essence of effective "multistakeholderism," which is not parochial and solely self-interested.  For that reason, many of these fears about "multistakeholders" turning everything into policy are misplaced.  "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail" does not apply here.  We are not hammers (much less a bag of hammers).

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (07:23) 141 is all clean up.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (07:25) @Chuck: The think is that at that point critical decisition are made and other organizations should be involved in that decition since at the end it affects everyone.. I really do not understand why the restriction in keeping out other organization out of the decition loop.

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:25) I am not sure that CCWG is going to have the time to change its document sufficiently that we can't assume the details in their plans, does it?

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:25) or rather, "will it"?

  Avri Doria: (07:26) Andrew as grace says, look at the diffrence between of first comment doc and our second comment doc.

  Avri Doria: (07:27) can we just use bracketed text on the expected and add a footnote?

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:28) I agree that there's a big difference, but this claim abouts to a claim that the foundational assumptions of this document are  at best sand

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:28) And we are _out of time_

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (07:29) +1 Jonathan, lets' link to CCWG

  Avri Doria: (07:29) Andrew, while i agree with you on the matter of time, not everyone does.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:30) The point here is IF ICANN becomes a membership org, THEN the members must approve.  This does not bind us to a membership  model.

  Avri Doria: (07:30) was a accidental hand. sorry.

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:30) @greg: that's fine with me.  Conditional sentences are easily parsed.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:31) Designators would not sit in the equivalent position, and would not logically (or legally) have a post-board approval right.

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:35) No need for apologies -- I sent them late and I didn't think that they'd get integrated in time.

  Avri Doria: (07:35) had been 173

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:36) agree with Lise

  Staffan Jonson: (07:36) Lise: hear hear

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (07:36) YES,  as it is now - CSC is limited to some - not MS

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:38) The last version I saw explicitly said in a footnote that it would go after the transition

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:38) but that INT needed to be dealt with

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:38) I thought the footnote was just fine

  Avri Doria: (07:39) i might have missed the footnote in the annex in my reading, apologies.

  Lise Fuhr: (07:40) Yes

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:43) Unfortunately, the webinar announcement that just came out says that we have already provided our final document to the chartering organizations for approval.  :-)

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:44) I meant that we would have provided that by the time the Webinars were to take place... Bad wording on my part.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (07:45) At the time of the webinars, we will have provided the final version so it should say that.

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:45) I will make an edit

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (07:46) I will send in some comments on page 11 and 17

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:47) agree:  it will make the document much easier to tackle

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (07:47) Thanks, Grace and sorry to bring it up in the chat...

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:47) No, it was a good point @Greg. Thanks for flagging

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:49) They haven't been integrated (so I've just been silent about things I sent last evening), but I had some significant worries about Annex S, which didn't seem to me to be entirely consistent with everything else I understood

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:50) agree with Avri

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:50) it was my error in incorporating Martin's comments. apologies.

  Jonathan Robinson: (07:53) @Andrew, it may make sense to state those briefly in the audio. Flagging them for attention

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:53) I think it was my fault Grace

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:53) I thought it was 3c+3g

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:53) my mistrake

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (07:54) don't want to meddle in the gtld world

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:54) :)

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:56) very good point

  Donna Austin, RySG: (07:56) that sounds like a reasonable addition

  Grace Abuhamad: (07:56) So, should we add a disclaimer to the beginning of Annex S?

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:57) Fully agree that the term sheet needn't be actually right.  It's marked as a sample.  I just think it shouldn't be actually inconsistent with the text.  I think there's already a disclaimer (it says "sample")

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:59) Sorry, it didn't say "sample", it said "draft"

  Andrew Sullivan: (07:59) So, better to say "sample" or something

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (08:00) Sample is too generic.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (08:00) We should try to root out actual inconsistencies.

  Allan MacGillivray: (08:00) On Josh's point, I suggest another disclaimer saying in effect, whewre there is a conflict between the term sheet and the main [roosal, the main proposal takes precedence.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (08:00) +1 to Allan.

  Grace Abuhamad: (08:00) One thing that needs to be clarified in PTI term sheet is the "naming functions" vs. "all functions" role for PTI. Please look at this and send edits

  Avri Doria: (08:01) as part of the implementation work

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (08:03) Thanks Marika.  That sounds fine.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (08:04) Thank you Marika, Grace and all the CWG staff for some serious yeoman's work here!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (08:06) bye all

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (08:06) Thanks all.

  Staffan Jonson: (08:06) Thank You all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (08:06) thanks all

  Allan MacGillivray: (08:06) Thanks all.

  Lise Fuhr: (08:06) Bye and thank you all

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (08:06) Bye all.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (08:06) bye

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (08:06) bye all

  Maarten Simon, SIDN: (08:06) bye