Dear all, Please find included the notes from todays ISTACC call This is background material for item nr 4 on the agenda Kind regards, Bart ISTACC - 23 September @20:00 UTC Agenda 1. Welcome and roll call 2. Update ICG * Current status * Result of public comment outcome of ICG f-2-f meeting 3. Update CWG * SLE * IP * Submission CWG on Conditionality 4. Update CCWG * Public comment * Anticipated outcome f-2-f meeting LA * Expected date Final Report WS 1 5. Session on ICG, CWG and CCWG at the Dublin meeting 6. AOB Apologies: Keith Davidson, Giovanni Seppia, Mathieu Weill, Peter van Roste * NOTES: 2. Update ICG Current status Result of public comment outcome of ICG f-2-f meeting Overview of comments received. Members ICG read through comments If reach-out needed, then to specific community - PTI came out strongly as a concern, need to referred to all communities - non-ccNSO ccTLD should not be made compulsary - Question removal of ICP-1 as policy refefence: - Agreement on terms of IPR Tomorrow call for ICG Suggestion to read Blog post from ICG: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-full-steam-ahead Paul Kane: Welcome comment on non-ccNSO ccTLD. Composition of CSC: according CWG, proposes non-ccNSO ccTLD be made member of CSC. One commment: should not be made mandatory. Paul K comment: non-ccNSO member should be part of CSC Mary: Names community should clarify. Byron: Provide claririty around ICP-1 Mary: question goes back to NAming community to provide clarification, not role of ICG. Mary: Nothing said on delegation and redelgation in names proposals. Comment: it is part of dicussion in Dublin * 2. Update CWG SLE IP Submission CWG on Conditionality Update Lise: SLE finalised at last call, submitted to ICG, and one follow-up where ICANN/IANA is with regard with scoping document. Document needs to be approved by NTIA. Staff to get update where IACAN/IANA is. SLE does improve service. Lot of bureacracy to run Feed-back that must be weigh CWG awaiting from ICG. co-chairs are scheduling call to coordinate how to deal with questions IPR: dealt with under implementation phase. CWG is supporting transfer IPR to a trust. Sidley draft submission on requirements CWG requirements. - IANA budget, apporve or veto -> changed to veto - Appeals mechanism: Clarity around IANA decisions is needed * Submission CWG into public comment Call with CCWG co-chairs: Board has submitted comment that would change substantial parts of proposals * Call with CWG tomorrow with Sidley to check whether Board "proposal" would meet the requriements of the CWG. Porposal CCWG to date meets requiements with minor additionas. If proposal Implementation process: Need to discuss with CCWG. Not scheduled a conversation on implementation. Role of CWG in implementation needs to be discussed. * Question Mary: Does CWG foresee requirement CWG ar enot met by CCWG? If so would this derail transition Paul Kane: work item is ongoing. The CWG has not considered the CCWG Question: Where does CWG go from here, looking at the isues raised. Personally: It would make sense if the CWG would continue during implementation. Input members needed. If group agrees to get involved in implementation go back to chartering organisation. Also question of ICG and how they see there role in implmentation * 4. Update CCWG Public comment Anticipated outcome f-2-f meeting LA Expected date Final Report WS 1 Becky: Public comment closed Broad range of substantive comments Board comments: too much change and therfore de-stabilises. However, comments do not provide clarity. - Process recall Board - Community powers Community review Principle objection on Single member model. Personal Interpretation: affects the balance of powers too much Proposal may have enforcibality issues * CCWG meeting in LA. Not a meeting with the Board, but a lot of Board members will be present. Focus of meeting is to go over comments received, including Board comments * If Board recommendations were to be adopted, significant re-write of Proposal would be needed. Comment: Difficult conversation will be if submission from one stakeholder will be followed? Another point: if Board proposals were to be follooed there may be issue with requirements CWG. Expectation: it will be very difficult to ask adoption by chartering in Dublin * Questions: Any sense of when there is a revised document? Depends on what happens in LA, in context of all and taking into account all comments Because of impact on workload of CCWG members it amy be unreasonable to expect to meet 9 October deadline. In best case just a few days before the meeting Comment/Question: Strong external signals about complexity etc. How does it impact decision making of CCWG? Comment: Ira's messaging more positive. Core of leadership in conversation with community, is support of solid proposal that not gives it away to GAC. Diificult to walk back from voting structure. Need to have enough consensus. * Issue of Complexity of 2nd Proposal is non-sensical. It applies as well as to Board proposal Issue is writing, the style and way the proposals are presented makes it complex due to time pressures * Paul K: Better getting it right. Focus in Congress is on Accountability. and not so much on IANA Transition. Transition can happen once Accountability is in palce. Messaging needs to be significantly simplified. Comment: Process timeline is hard and fast looking. Question: around Bush campaign. Answer: do not read too much into it. In election year anything can happen. Congressional leadership is stil comfortable. Paul K: emphasize IAAN contract could be extended. Important tha teverything is in place to avoid capture. 5. Session on ICG, CWG and CCWG at the Dublin meeting Presentation of rough session proposals ( Included) Co-chairs and team leads CWG and CCWG will be contacted to discuss sessions in more detail * 6. AOB Nothing raised * Next call in two weeks: 7 October 20.00 UTC