Attendees: 

Members:  Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Oliver Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji   (9)

Participants:  Alan Greenberg, Alissa Cooper, Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Wilkinson, Chuck Gomes, Jordan Carter, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Davidson, Matthew Shears, Nathalie Coupet, Samantha Eisner, Suzanne Woolf   (12)

Legal Counsel:  Jay Daley, Josh Hofheimer, Rebecca Grapsas, Sharon Flanagan   (4)

Staff:  Akram Atallah, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, David Conrad, Elise Gerich, Nathalie Vergnolle, Trang Nguyen, Xavier Calvez, Yuko Green

Apologies:  Martin Boyle, Lise Fuhr

 

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

Agenda

1. Status Update (Chairs)

2. Implementation Update

    • Staff update
    • DT-A/ Names SLEs update (Paul Kane)
    • DT-O update on PTI budget  (Chuck Gomes)

3. Key Issues (with Sidley)

    • PTI Articles of Incorporation
    • PTI Governance Documents

-        Conflict of Interest Policy

-        Board Code of Conduct

-        Expected Standard of Behavior

    • Naming Functions Agreement (including Annex C?)
    • PTI Bylaws
    • Services Agreement (headers now available)
    • IANA IPR

4. Client Committee

5. AOB

Notes

Notes:

2. Implementation

  • NTIA report due 8/12
  • Names SLEs: a few remaining points to be addressed.

            ACTION: schedule next DT-A call

  • PTI Budget: process being finalized

            ACTION: provide suggested changes to Section 9.2 and 9.3 of the PTI bylaws 

 

3. Key issues

  • PTI AoI: closed
  • PTI Gov. docs: Standard of Behavior and Code of Conduct closed, CoI policy should close today. No remaining issues.
  • Naming Functions Agreement

            - Annex C: discussed how it can be adequately included in the Naming function contract

            ACTION:  work on the ANNEX C - CWG proposal for adequate inclusion in the Naming function contract

            - Target date for posting for Public Comment: 08 August.

  • PTI Bylaws:

            - PTI chairman appointment discussed. 

            - Sidley has prepared a Comment letter.

            ACTION: 10 items to be reviewed by the group.

  • IANA IPR

            - Reviewed Top 6 Legal Issues

            ACTION:  CWG to identify the signing party representing CWG  as well as the representatives who will serve on the CCG.

            - Goal is to have all 3 agreements drafted by Aug 8 for start of public comment.

Action Items

  • ACTION: schedule next DT-A call
  • ACTION: provide suggested changes to Section 9.2 and 9.3 of the PTI bylaws 
  • ACTION:  work on the ANNEX C - CWG proposal for adequate inclusion in the Naming function contract
  • ACTION: 10 items to be reviewed by the group.
  • ACTION:  CWG to identify the signing party representing CWG  as well as the representatives who will serve on the CCG.

Transcript

Recordings

Documents

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (8/4/2016 13:09) Good day all and welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #86 on 4 August 2016 @ 20:00 UTC!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:48) Hi Brenda

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:48) Hi Everybody

  Brenda Brewer: (14:48) Hello again Kavouss!!

  Paul Kane: (14:58) Hi Jaap - long time!!

  Tra: (14:58) Hello - "Tra" is Trang. I hit the enter button a little too quickly.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:59) :-)

  Nathalie Vergnolle: (14:59) Hi Trang, I adjusted your name

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (15:00) Hello

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (15:00) Hello

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:01) Hi

  Trang: (15:02) Thank you, Nathalie!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:04) Yes

  Donna Austin, RySG: (15:11) the GNSO Council will consider the slate on 9 August

  Andrew Sullivan: (15:13) Yeah, it was not "no concerns" but "not appropriate for us to comment"

  Andrew Sullivan: (15:14) (speaking as the person who transmitted that message.)

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (15:14) To be clear, Sidley has provided comments on the Naming Functions Agreement to ICANN, so we are waiting for the next turn from ICANN legal

  Jonathan Robinson: (15:15) Thanks Josh

  matthew shears: (15:16) I apologize perhaps I missed it but what is NTIA specifically expecting from ICANN and what it is expected to have completed by August 12 or are they expecting an overall update? 

  Sharon Flanagan: (15:18) ICANN legal has sent us the revised articles and we only had one minor comment

  Jonathan Robinson: (15:18) Thank-you Sharon

  matthew shears: (15:19) ok thanks - that's helpful

  Trang: (15:20) @ Josh, yes, that is correct. ICANN is reviewing the feedback from Sidley and will revert.

  Akram: (15:21) @Mathew NTIA will make a decision on extending the IANA contract on the 15th based on the report that we deliver on Aug 12.  It is in our best interest to finish all possible tasks before issuing the report.  And providing confidence that the remaining tasks will be implemented before september 30th.  I hope this answers your question.

  Jonathan Robinson: (15:22) Thank-you Akram

  Paul Kane: (15:22) Will do

  Sharon Flanagan: (15:24) Will this be provided as suggested changes to Section 9.2 and 9.3 of the bylaws?

  Sharon Flanagan: (15:25) thanks

  matthew shears: (15:25) Thanks Akram

  Jonathan Robinson: (15:29) Sidley's latest correspondencce on governance docs has gone to the CWG today

  Samantha Eisner: (15:29) @Sharon, agreed

  Sharon Flanagan: (15:30) This is a PTI bylaws point - not on these governance documents

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (15:31) Revisiting the PTI Board Chairman issue seems too late to me.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (15:31) We spent a lot of time on it.

  Samantha Eisner: (15:31) Is the audio very patchy for other participants?

  Paul Kane: (15:32) Sam - yes - patchy!

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (15:33) receiving audio loud & clear here too

  Samantha Eisner: (15:34) it seems to be on the phone line.  Audio through AC is clear

  elise: (15:36) Audio is clear for me, and I have dialed in so I am not using the audio from Adobe Connect

  Jordan Carter: (15:36) I don't see why any change should be made

  Donna Austin, RySG: (15:36) Apologies, I need to drop off the call. I will return if time permits.

  Jordan Carter: (15:37) should not be relitigating the detailed discussions now

  Andrew Sullivan: (15:37) And I think that one person is in the rough here.

  Jordan Carter: (15:41) a strong argument to change should be considered now if it introduces new thinking of perspectives, but nothing CW has said appears to reach that threshold.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (15:42) We all support a neutral chair but do not believe that the only way that can happen is by restricting it to NomCom appointed directors.

  Greg Shatan: (15:43) In order to appoint the best possible chair, all of the board members should be under consideration.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (15:43) We also want the most qualified chair and that might not always be a NomCom appointee.

  Alan Greenberg: (15:44) Christopher, note that the other two directors are not selected by the operational communities, they are named by ICANN and are ICANN employees.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:44) Agree totally Chuck (noting my previous experience *with* our NC

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (15:44) Availability to serve is another factor that must be considered for the chair.  It may be that for a given year, a NomCom appointee is unable to commit the time to serve as chair.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (15:48) Giving the PTI Board maximum flexibility in selecting a chair for any given year seems wise.

  Jonathan Robinson: (15:53) I have just sent to the CWG the chart currently being discussed

  Sharon Flanagan: (15:57) @ Sam - agreed

  Paul Kane: (15:58) I don't thinak we want change - but we do want to ensure that the status quo is maintained.... and for many ccTLDs it is not being ubject to ICAnn

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (15:59) indeed Paul

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (16:00) Sounds like aa good way fwd  Sam

  Paul Kane: (16:03) I have not seen that

  Samantha Eisner: (16:04) That is something that could run, as necessary, concurrently with the public comment

  Paul Kane: (16:04) Note - i am not active in the ICANN community.... but am a ccTLD manager!!!

  Samantha Eisner: (16:05) @jonathan, yes

  Trang: (16:08) I just want to remind the group of what the CWG proposal says about annex C, which is titled "Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship for Names Functions." The intro to the annex says: "These principles are criteria are meant to be the basis upon which the decisions on the transition of NTIA stewardship are formed. This means that the proposals can be tested against the principles and criteria before they are sent to the ICG."

  Alan Greenberg: (16:10) My recollection is that the FoI is in accordance with the GAC 2005 Principles and the Principles still stand.

  Keith Davidson: (16:10) Paul is correct - the GAC Principles only apply (according to the principles themselves) when both the Government and the ccTLD operator both agree that they should apply.

  elise: (16:10) the language in the FOIWG final report says: "Nothing in the Framework of Interpretation limits or constrains the applicability of the 2005 GAC "Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains"  - if this helps as a reference

  Nathalie Coupet: (16:10) @Nathalie" Could I have a link to the GAC principles, please?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (16:11) thanks @Elise

  Keith Davidson: (16:11) I was the chair of the FOI Working Group :-)

  elise: (16:11) https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf

  Brenda Brewer: (16:12) Kavouss disconnected

  Brenda Brewer: (16:12) calling back Kavouss

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (16:12) I actively served on FOI WG as well so happy to assist Jonathan

  Alissa Cooper: (16:15) This is not a rush. This is the end of the line. We either get it done or all of this work was for naught.

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:16) I don't think there's any more time, though, is there?  It's the 4th, and 12 is Friday.

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:16) What Alissa said

  Alan Greenberg: (16:16) There are a few people on this call who *DO* know what they are talking about. We have seen comments by Keith and Cheryl.

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:16) (Fri next)

  Akram: (16:17) Alissa and Andrew +++++

  Keith Davidson: (16:18) The FOI does not supercede the2005 GAC Principles. The FOI highlights that the GAC Preinciples 2005 **ONLY** applies when both the Government and the ccTLD Operator **BOTH** agree that the Principles to apply

  Paul Kane: (16:19) Thanks Keith

  Samantha Eisner: (16:19) @Jonathan, agreed.  The PTI naming functions agreement is not where decisions should be made about which policies apply

  Samantha Eisner: (16:19) it's about assuring that there are appropriate requirements to follow existing policies and procedures

  Paul Kane: (16:20) So there will be a WG?

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:22) this idea that it's more important to "get it right" than to "get it quickly" is pernicious.  If we dont get it done quickly, we're not going to get it _at all_

  Samantha Eisner: (16:24) @Paul, this document was circulated to the CWG weeks ago

  Samantha Eisner: (16:26) Also, principles from this have been incorporated into the Bylaws

  Paul Kane: (16:26) Could you send it again

  Paul Kane: (16:27) Fine - thank

  Sharon Flanagan: (16:27) Each of the 10 items should be walked through and resolved.  This should be done in detail rather than at a high level

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:28) If we do not manage to get to the IPR today, what is the backup plan?

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:30) hurray!

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:30) :)

  Greg Shatan: (16:34) :-)

  CHRISTOPHER Wilkinson: (16:36) No concerns but it appears very cirular. So the Trust licenes ICANN IPR which it currently holds…

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (16:45) I have to leave the call now, see you later all

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (16:46) Sorry this is probably a stupid question but what is the acronym CCG?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (16:46) aaah ok - thanks. Not defined on this page.

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:49) It would be nice to know who is going to be signing for the names community, yes

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:51) I don't understand how it seems like a presupposition.  There are three separate operational communities, so there have to be three licenses.  No?

  Alissa Cooper: (16:51) There are already three separate contracts with ICANN/PTI for the services themselves.

  Samantha Eisner: (16:51) ICANN does not have a concern with the principle of entering into three separate license agreements

  matthew shears: (16:52) so were ICANN not the IFO who would sublicense to the new IFO?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (16:52) Agree with Andrew.  Address a possible situation, however remote, does not imply a presupposition.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (16:52) Addressing (not address)

  Avri Doria: (16:53) in the case of speration, would ICANN's obligation to transfer all necessary capability for the IANA function include this license?

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:54) The license could be terminated by the Trust under those circumstances

  Avri Doria: (16:54) the ICANN license.

  Avri Doria: (16:54) teminated or transfered?

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:54) On the "closed protocols": closed protocols can already get IANA protocol numbers

  Andrew Sullivan: (16:55) terminated and a new license written is I think the plan, but I don't think it matters, exactly?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (16:55) Reply to Avri ,Normall, YES

  Greg Shatan: (16:56) The other communities are either in favor of or not opposed to having the three licenses.  This is not a CWG-mandated condition, but rather one that has been generally arrived.

  Greg Shatan: (16:56) at.

  Avri Doria: (16:58) thanks for the answer to my question.

  matthew shears: (16:58) Josh - but there would still be three licenses and one or all of them would have to sublicense to a new IFO

  Greg Shatan: (16:58) With a single license, we would need to deal with a partial termination and a disentangling of the license.

  Alissa Cooper: (16:59) The IPR license does not control separability (or lack thereof). If the protocol parameters services move elsewhere, we can rename them and whether that one license to ICANN still exists would be irrelevant.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (16:59) We should have a fairly statble situation in case of termination or transfer and not starat every thing from scrach

  Greg Shatan: (16:59) @Alissa, true -- that is an inconvenience but not a barrier.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (17:00) separation or termination with PTI should not negatively impact any OC

  Andrew Sullivan: (17:00) @Kavouss: that's the idea: the Trust and the communities will have a solid arrangement and it'll be a trivial matter to undertake the licenses

  Greg Shatan: (17:01) Matthew, it's possible that a community could contract directly with a new IANA operator without the need for a sublicense.

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (17:01) @Kavouss, agreed. 

  CHRISTOPHER Wilkinson: (17:01) Andrew: <closed protocols can already get IANA protocol numbers…  i have very strong reservations about that.

  Greg Shatan: (17:02) The representatives will serve on the CCG, but they will not be signatories.

  Alissa Cooper: (17:02) signatories do not need to be identified before public comment, in my opinion

  Alissa Cooper: (17:02) who the signatories are is not a matter for public comment

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (17:03) lost jonathan

  Greg Shatan: (17:05) It's probably the IETF rather than the Trust, but I bow to the Trust/IETF folks on this list.

  Andrew Sullivan: (17:05) @Christopher: you may feel uncomfortable with it, but that's the way things are at IANA today

  CHRISTOPHER Wilkinson: (17:08) Andrew: I persuaded the EU to go with the Internet in 1998 on the basis of open non proprietary standards. That is fundamental for me. W

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (17:08) Thanks everyone  Bye for now

  Avri Doria: (17:09) bye, lovely meeting

  Andrew Sullivan: (17:09) bye all

  Greg Shatan: (17:09) Bye all!

  matthew shears: (17:09) thks

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (17:09) bye all

  CHRISTOPHER Wilkinson: (17:09) B'ye CW

  • No labels