Members:  Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Fatima Cambronero, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji   (13)

Participants:   Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Brenden Kuerbis, Chuck Gomes, Gary Hunt, Greg DiBiase, Jorge Cancio, Mark Carvell, Mary Uduma, Nathalie Coupet, Paul Szyndler, Stephanie Duchesneau    (12)

Legal Counsel:   Sharon Flanagan, Josh Hofheimer, Holly Gregory, Rebecca Grapsas

Staff:   Alain Durand, Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings

Apologies:  Martin Boyle, Elise Lindeberg, Staffan Jonson, Wanawit Ahkuputra 

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


1. Opening Remarks

2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses

3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal 

4. Last Review of Final Proposal 

5. Overall Timeline / Milestones

    a. Communications

    b. Webinars on 11 June

    c. Sessions at ICANN 53

6. AOB

    a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement

    b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call 

    c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June

7. Closing Remarks


1. Opening Remarks

  • A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. 
  • Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document  to the CWG. 
  • CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE
  • Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note. 

2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses

Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June. 

3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal 

The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: 

Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information). 

4. Last Review of Final Proposal 

On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included. 

Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote.  ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets. 

Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" 

Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory. 

Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit. 

Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121

Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now. 

Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things

Paragraph 155Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" 

Section IVAction: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. 

Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table

Annex HAction: remove escalation paragraph and preamble

Annex JAction: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter 

Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg 

5. Overall Timeline / Milestones

    a. Communications

    b. Webinars on 11 June

    c. Sessions at ICANN 53

6. AOB

    a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement

    b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call 

    c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June

7. Closing Remarks

After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE

Action Items

Paragraph 108:  Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" 

Paragraph 134:  Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things

Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" 

Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. 

Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble

Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter 

Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things


Transcript CWG IANA #58_9 June.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #58_9 June.pdf


Adobe Connect recording is available here:

MP3 recording is available here:

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (6/9/2015 11:41) Welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #58 on 9 June.

  Greg Shatan: (11:58) I had an earlier call where at least one AC request went into the ether...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:59) yup it happens

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (11:59) Hello everybody

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (12:00) hi everyone

  Mary Uduma: (12:00) Hello All

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:01) hi Mary

  Mary Uduma: (12:03) Hello Cherlyl. I hope my connection will work well today. It did not at the last call.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:03) Josh Hofheimer is here with me.

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:04) Noted, thanks @Sharon

  Alan Greenberg: (12:05) Is it Wednesday or the 11th? Can't be both.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:05) fingers crossed @mary

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:10) The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki:

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:13) Could Sidley get a copy of version 5? Thanks

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:13) Will send now Sharon

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:16) anyway to make typeface bigger?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:17) Thanks you

  Alan Greenberg: (12:17) Comment @ 125

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:17) use the full screen option ax well that helps. I am working off a tablet ATM...

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (12:20) Much better to define and ringfence assets now than at time of any spin-out or recontracting.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:21) Yes Greg, that is the point

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (12:21) Correct - separability in the future

  Lise Fuhr: (12:23) @Alan PTI is owned by ICANN so that would be the choice of ICANN and hence the MS

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:23) Yes, ICANN has control of PTI  and the implementation docs will specify that PTI may not transfer assets without ICANN approvalm

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:24) identify and isolate

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (12:27) would be allowed unless specifically approved by ICANN

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (12:29) I would take out "As it is customary" at this point, since it's a little more custom (and thus less customary) now.

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:30) ok noted Greg

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (12:34) I have tissues.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:34) the timings will depend on the decision of the IRF itself. Indeed if deciding on a separation we'll need the next review to be a lot sooner than if there is no separation

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:35) if we start with a new IANA operator, it's fair to ask for a shorter first cycle

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (12:35) but if no change at the review we can continue with the dame cyce

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (12:35) This Internet thing will catch on eventually.

  Alan Greenberg: (12:37) Can we go back to 125 after

  Bart Boswinkel (staff): (12:37) Paul is supposed on the call shortly

  Marika's 2nd screen: (12:38) The principles have been added to the annex

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:38) Text is in the annex

  Marika's 2nd screen: (12:38) the idea is that a summary would be included here, referencing th annex for further details

  Alan Greenberg: (12:38) I want to hear from Marika, not from her screen!

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:38) jinx @Marika :P

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:38) Let's ask DT-A to respond to Martin's suggestions.

  Bart Boswinkel (staff): (12:39) Paul will also provide summary langauge to include in this section

  Marika's 2nd screen: (12:42) I got the summary language from Bart and will paste it here now.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:43) Looks fine to me.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:44) can we see the first paragraph again?

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:46) Thank you.  @Jonathan is correct, please conform to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things

  Alan Greenberg: (12:49) Can we presume that there will be no NTIA objection to IANA doing the work just outlined (since they are still technically in control)

  Paul Kane: (12:52) Happy

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:53) Please mute mics unless speaking

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (12:53) Sorry for mic

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (12:54) This telephone thing will catch on eventually.

  Alan Greenberg: (12:58) @Greg, I am told that voice is passe. You should onlny use SMS

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:00) apologies, I have to drop from this call.

  Lise Fuhr: (13:00) Bye Donna

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2: (13:03) I appreciate what Paul Kane said that there needed to be a differentiation between delays caused by IANA and delays caused by Registries.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:05) I think Paul is best able to respond to Jonathan's comments.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:06) You are welcome Paul.  :)

  Alan Greenberg: (13:06) Ask DT-A members to make themselves available for any future implementation work regarding SLEs. So it is not DT-A, but the same people.

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (13:07) There used to be an Ad-Hoc comittee doing similar stuff as DT-A (around 2003 or so).

  Paul Kane: (13:08) Yes - agree

  Paul Kane: (13:08) Tomorow is fine for a formal proposal

  Paul Kane: (13:08) for consideration

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:09) Each is legally clearer.  Both could imply they vote together

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:10) Supermajority from each of both. ?

  Mary Uduma: (13:11) @Sharon that was my interpretation of" from both".  I think your formulation is clearer

  Brenden Kuerbis: (13:11) Agree

  Avri Doria 2: (13:12) exactly.  who know what processes the two SO may have at the applicable time.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (13:12) agree with chuck

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (13:13) +Sharon, "each of" is more legally precise and avoids any inference that they might vote together.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2: (13:16) the optics for this are important @Alan, yes

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:16) Agree with Avri.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:17) + Avri.  Working group adds another layer of time to implement

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2: (13:17) So *how* will the checking and review be undertaken? By whom? GNSO Council?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:17) If a WG is appropriate it can be created but it may not be needed in all cases.

  Avri Doria 2: (13:19) Olivier, yes, by the Council after a coent period.  and tere is an ALAC laison on the Council.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:19) I don't think it should be preferred....

  Avri Doria 2: (13:20) a WG is a year.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (13:20) agree with greg, i do not think forming a wg is preferable here

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:20) Maybe we shouldn't suggest a public comment period.  That might not be needed in all cases either.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:21) No body is saying there should not be participation from everyone.

  Avri Doria 2: (13:21) n one is saying that we should not have meaningulf consultation.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:21) Good suggestion Stephanie.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:21) I'm fine with what's there now....

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:23) I like this better.

  Alan Greenberg: (13:23) Chartering a SIFR which could trigger a separation process is NOT (to quote Greg) "walking across the street"

  Avri Doria 2: (13:23) A WG usually includes 2 comment periods and take a year+

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:23) Let's form a SIFR Team to decide whether to form a SIFR Team, and so forth....

  Avri Doria 2: (13:24) the SIFR only recommends, that too has a comment period, and Board approval.

  Avri Doria 2: (13:24) conflating SIFR with SCWg missed the point of how much of a check there is in between.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (13:24) Exactly, the real work is later.

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (13:24) i think the comment period and consultation languag is OK and am comfortable moving on

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (13:25) my suggestion was just for simplificiation, not to change the intent of proposal

  Avri Doria 2: (13:25) the SIFR is the multstakeholder body that actually makees recommendations regarding an SCWg.  and a SCWG is the multistakeholder body that decides on ultimate dispostion.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:25) I am okay with the language there now.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:26) I prefer to keep it more flexible.

  Avri Doria 2: (13:26) i am fine with taking out the require public comment and just having meaninfgul consultation.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:26) may rather than must.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:26) should is too instructive.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:26) Let's move on.

  Avri Doria 2: (13:26) lets leave it may

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:27) Alas and ALAC....

  Avri Doria 2: (13:27) when using Should, it is a Must with exceptions, which should be enumerated.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:27) Thank you Avri.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2: (13:29) What might appear to be a detail is a major issue of openness in the process. One can easily be accused by non ICANNers that the process needing to go through the GNSO will never allow for separation as the GNSO will stop it. We're trying to show the process is so open that it really serves the public interest

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2: (13:29) "allow for separation" -> allow for Special Review

  Avri Doria 2: (13:29) Olivier i see no t basis for that statement

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2: (13:30) I fuly support an escalation ladder that has many stages BTW - but want to make sure the process is as open as possible end to end

  Alan Greenberg: (13:31) I understand that there will still be 24 hour review period, but not all of us can devote all of our time to either ICANN or the CWG.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:31) We will revise this to make it fit into the proposal. This was informal for CWG's information.

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:32) Sharon -- could I not an action item for you to provide text?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:32) Yes, that is our assessment re timing. 

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:33) @ Grace - we will do that.

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:33) ok

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:34) Text came from Alan Greenberg

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:34) I included in based on a comment from Alan Greenberg

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:34) We don't think physical separation is necessary from a legal standpoint

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:35) That's fine.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (13:36) @Greg - agreed

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:36) I am not opposed to deleting the sentence.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:37) I assumed physical infrastructure.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:37) We could put little stickers on the technical infrastructure for IANA.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:38) I could see recommending it in the event that there is an overall redesign of the physical space for other reasons.

  chris: (13:38) Separating infrastructure could be quite expensive NB on modern security standards it might have to be duplicated. CW

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:39) If this is in the annex, it should be deleted there too.

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:39) The sentence is not in the Annex

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:40) Otherwise, this becomes a variation on an old lawyering trick "If you can't screw them in the agreement, screw them in the Schedules....."

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:47) "Special IFR " please (not SIFR)

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:49) The CSC Charter shoudl be made consistent on this point

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:50) noted Sharon

  Avri Doria 2: (13:52) it makes no sense for an IFR to lead to an SIFR

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (13:53) My comment is on 4) above

  Avri Doria 2: (13:53) or is the IANA REview function not an IANA Function Review

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:53) Please raise hand to clarify Sharon

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:55) It was an error Greg

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:55) I think it should be IFR.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (13:55) not a bananas foster, just an error

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (13:55) @Greg - I think the phrase is just flipped. 

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (13:56) can we just change it to "consider and address any systemic issues"

  Avri Doria 2: (13:56) right, if needed it will recommend a SCWG.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:57) The term "IANA Review Function" should be removed, changed or defined.

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:57) Yes, Stephanies point makes sense to me

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:58) OK

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:58) @Greg -- It was an error. It's meant to be IFR. Good catch, and we will fix

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (13:59) can we say "to consider and address"

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (13:59) Agree.  This should be within a periodic IFR's remit.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:59) Thanks Stephanie.

  Avri Doria 2: (14:00) all of the principles are guidelines anayway

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (14:02) That's fine then.  I think it's ok to leave

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (14:02) It says that this structure shall prevail.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (14:03) In the event of a conflict between this structure and any recommendations of the CCWG-CCWG, this structure shall prevail.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (14:03) That's how I read it too

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (14:03) Suggested language above.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (14:04) Can add the intro phrase about unique purpose...

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (14:04) "herein" is "in here."  Forsooth.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (14:05) Somehow managed to avoid using "hereinbelow" and "hereinabove" in this document.

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (14:08) Happy to help.

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:09) ICANN 53:

  Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG): (14:11) you guys have been rockstars!! thanks for all the hard work

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (14:12) Thanks everyone.

  Nathalie Coupet: (14:13) Thank you

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (14:13) Very impressed with the work today and over the last few weeks! Well done everyone....

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (14:13) Agreed.  Great team effort and excellent leadership.

  Mary Uduma: (14:13) Thank you seems too simple to appreciate the work you guys have done. Braavo!!!!!

  Avri Doria 2: (14:13) it has been a blast.  same time next year?

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (14:13) Thank yhou to the co-chairs, staff, fellow members and participants!

  Allan MacGillivray: (14:13) Bravo Jonathan and Lise, and to all of you who have worked so hard to get this done.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:14) good call. lots done...

  Avri Doria 2: (14:14) thanks to you all.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:14) bye all

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (14:14) thanks all, by!

  Brenden Kuerbis: (14:14) thanks all

  Lise Fuhr: (14:14) Thank you all

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (14:14) They're coming to take us away....

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: (14:14) thanks and bye

  Greg Shatan (IPC/CSG/GNSO/The World): (14:14) Bye all!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:14) bye all

  Mary Uduma: (14:14) Bye all.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2: (14:14) Thanks everyone and THANKS JOnathan & Lise!!!

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond 2: (14:15) And thanks to the great work of Staff. Superb.

  • No labels