July 2014 - CWG-DT-Stewardship

Latest Version of Charter and Notes from Meeting
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 4, 2014

Aug. 4, 2014

Dear All, As discussed during our meeting today, please find attached the latest version of the draft charter. Notes from today's meeting are below and available on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/Qr3hAg Agenda - 28 July 2014 1. Welcome and roll-call 2. Confirmation of meeting notes and action items 3. Timeline Approval of charter and call/appointment of volunteers WG (In order to adopt charter in time, organize membership of the WG itself and have a first full-blown face to face meeting in LA, the draft charter needs to be completed by 14 August, order of approval will be ccNSO (21 August), ALAC (26 August), SSAC (2 September) and GNSO (4 September)). 4. Timelines and coordination with ICG 5. Run-through latest version of draft charter 6. AOB 7. Closure Meeting Notes / Action Items 28/7: · Meeting notes from 21/7 accepted · Byron reached out to GAC chair with reminder and re-invitation to join CWG. Action: Follow up next week for further suggestion regarding GAC participation in CWG · Add to agenda for meeting: resourcing; Root Zone maintainer; public consultation. o Resourcing was not discussed: defer for 4 August o Public Consultation partly addressed in Timeline overview (Item 4 on the agenda) Timeline · Who will forewarn SSAC, and other groups, to allow pre-consideration Action: Pre-warning by members and formal documentation by chairs of the convening SOs (Byron and Jonathan) to invite the SOs and ACs as well. Rationale: documentation of process. · Linking to Accountability process: to date the timeline and activities of the Accountability Process are not defined enough in detail to map them against the IANA Stewardship Transition Process. Action: Staff to evolve timeline with Accountability process when that information becomes available. Action: Share timelines with staff (Bart). Discussion draft charter · Comment 1: General agreement of attendees that goal is that WG will deliver a single proposal, while recognizing more then one could evolve, with aim to get to one proposal through iterative process. Action: Wordsmith language volunteers for capturing language on "single proposal": Julie, Leon, and Allan · Highlighted phrase to .INT deleted · Language on Root Zone Maintaining process: re-focus on role of NTIA in Root Zone maintainer process. Action: Avri and Chuck to propose language to the group. Group aware of Chuck¹s role and no objection. · Relation with Accountability Process: Avri's comment related to ICG language acceptable to all and will be included. · Start with Section III next week (4 August).

5 4

Recommended language related to RZM role discussions in CWG
by Avri Doria Aug. 2, 2014

Aug. 2, 2014

Hi, The following is language that chuck and I worked on to complete our assignment: The accountability function currently performed by NTIA regarding the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is within the scope of the CWG. While the issue of who performs the RZM role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed, discussion of the administrative interface between ICANN and the RZM management function is within scope. Thanks avri

3 2

Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
by Reed, Daniel A July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

I think the point about deliverables versus working process is apt. Deliverables are the substance From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 11:33 PM To: 'Grace Abuhamad'; 'Allan MacGillivray'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Avri Doria'; cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting Dear all, Being unable to attend Monday's call, I provide you hereafter with my remarks on the Charter's last version/ · The "Scope" part was modified according to our last call's discussion, but the "Problem Statement" and "Goals and Objectives" ones still present the CWG as a joint ccNSO-GNSO WG on the stewardship transition of IANA function related to naming services only. · Deliverables concerns substance, not process. The content of the "Deliverables" section should be under another section called "working methods" for example, while We should say what this CWG has to produce as substance (report about a transition plan, ...) with full details in the "deliverable" section · The definition of the consensus level should be in my opinion: o Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection o Consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of full consensus, the chairs should .... I would like to thank all those who proposed the modifications, especially Avri who captured very well the content of the discussion of last call. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Message d'origine----- De : cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Grace Abuhamad Envoyé : samedi 26 juillet 2014 00:25 À : Allan MacGillivray; Marika Konings; Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting Hi all, Attached are two latest versions of the charter. I removed Allan's notes as he requested. One version has redlined changes, the other is clean with just comments. Talk to you all on Monday, Grace On 7/24/14 3:49 PM, "Allan MacGillivray" <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>> wrote: >At the IETF BoF meeting this morning in Toronto, the IETF agreed to >establish a working group on IANA transition. Alissa Cooper made a >presentation (available at >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx ) >which contains (page 11) a revised timeline for the ICG's work. While >it remains even 'draftier' than their charter, it nevertheless reflects >some discussion that the ICG has apparently had since their meeting last week. > You will note that in this timeline, they are no longer seeking a >submission from each community by the end of the year, but rather by >Feb. 2, just before ICANN Marrakech. But the end date has been moved >to June to reflect the likelihood that the NTIA will have to run its >own domestic consultation process, which would likely include some form >of US Congressional scrutiny. > >Marika - could I ask you to remove the notes from me in the next >version of the draft charter? > >Thanks > >Allan > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >Konings >Sent: July-24-14 6:47 AM >To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org> >Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of >charter & notes from meeting > >As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the >liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the >comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and >sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional >members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use >this version to make any further comments / edits. > >Best regards, > >Marika > >On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: > >> >> >>On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>> Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been >>> working on the Academy WG around the same time. :) >> >>actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally >>press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012. >> >>i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake. >> >>thanks for noticing. >> >>avri >> >>> >>> >>> All good contributions Avri. >> >>thanks >> >>> >>> I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the >>> Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on >>> page 3. >>> >>> I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on >>> page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?" >>> >>> I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment >>> Ad26R25 on page 5. >>> >>> On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from >>> me: CG1 and CG16. >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been >>> working on the Academy WG around the same time. :) >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: >>> cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >>> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>> Doria >>> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: >>> cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For >>> your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have added a few more comments. >>> >>> avri >>> > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.

3 2

Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] CWG DT Stewardship Call
by Bart Boswinkel July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

Dear all, In order to prepare for todays call, I Suggest we use this version, which Julie just send, as base for todays discussion. Staff will use it as the version to be shared in the ADOBE room. Thank you, Kind regards, Bart From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Monday, July 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Cc: Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>>, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>>, "allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>" <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>>, "jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, "cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>" <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>, "Stephanie.Duchesneau(a)neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>" <Stephanie.Duchesneau(a)neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>>, Edmon Chung <edmon(a)registry.asia<mailto:edmon@registry.asia>>, "avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Tijani Benjemaa <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn>>, Leon Sanchez <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org<mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>, Gisella Gruber <Gisella.Gruber(a)icann.org<mailto:Gisella.Gruber@icann.org>>, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org<mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org>>, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>, "dan-reed(a)uiowa.edu<mailto:dan-reed@uiowa.edu>" <dan-reed(a)uiowa.edu<mailto:dan-reed@uiowa.edu>> Subject: Re: CWG DT Stewardship Call (Apologies to those who receive this twice, but it seems that I cannot send from my @me email account to the list, so I am having to resend this to all the individual email addressees.) Hi Everyone, I am travelling at the moment and have only had intermittent internet connectivity. However, I am hoping to join the teleconference later tonight (fingers crossed). I have added a couple of additional comments/queries to the version of the Charter circulated early this morning by Chuck. I also agree with the definitions of consensus proposed by Tijani. Cheers, Julie

2 1

Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
by Julie Hammer July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

Hi Everyone, I am travelling at the moment and have only had intermittent internet connectivity. However, I am hoping to join the teleconference later tonight (fingers crossed). I have added a couple of additional comments/queries to the version of the Charter circulated early this morning by Chuck. I also agree with the definitions of consensus proposed by Tijani. Cheers, Julie On 28 Jul 2014, at 2:33 pm, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn> wrote: Dear all, Being unable to attend Monday’s call, I provide you hereafter with my remarks on the Charter’s last version/ · The “Scope” part was modified according to our last call’s discussion, but the “Problem Statement” and “Goals and Objectives” ones still present the CWG as a joint ccNSO-GNSO WG on the stewardship transition of IANA function related to naming services only. · Deliverables concerns substance, not process. The content of the “Deliverables” section should be under another section called “working methods” for example, while We should say what this CWG has to produce as substance (report about a transition plan, …) with full details in the “deliverable” section · The definition of the consensus level should be in my opinion: o Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection o Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of full consensus, the chairs should …. I would like to thank all those who proposed the modifications, especially Avri who captured very well the content of the discussion of last call. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Message d'origine----- De : cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Grace Abuhamad Envoyé : samedi 26 juillet 2014 00:25 À : Allan MacGillivray; Marika Konings; Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting Hi all, Attached are two latest versions of the charter. I removed Allan's notes as he requested. One version has redlined changes, the other is clean with just comments. Talk to you all on Monday, Grace On 7/24/14 3:49 PM, "Allan MacGillivray" <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca> wrote: >At the IETF BoF meeting this morning in Toronto, the IETF agreed to >establish a working group on IANA transition. Alissa Cooper made a >presentation (available at >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx ) >which contains (page 11) a revised timeline for the ICG's work. While >it remains even 'draftier' than their charter, it nevertheless reflects >some discussion that the ICG has apparently had since their meeting last week. > You will note that in this timeline, they are no longer seeking a >submission from each community by the end of the year, but rather by >Feb. 2, just before ICANN Marrakech. But the end date has been moved >to June to reflect the likelihood that the NTIA will have to run its >own domestic consultation process, which would likely include some form >of US Congressional scrutiny. > >Marika - could I ask you to remove the notes from me in the next >version of the draft charter? > >Thanks > >Allan > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >Konings >Sent: July-24-14 6:47 AM >To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of >charter & notes from meeting > >As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the >liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the >comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and >sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional >members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use >this version to make any further comments / edits. > >Best regards, > >Marika > >On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > >> >> >>On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>> Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been >>> working on the Academy WG around the same time. :) >> >>actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally >>press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012. >> >>i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake. >> >>thanks for noticing. >> >>avri >> >>> >>> >>> All good contributions Avri. >> >>thanks >> >>> >>> I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the >>> Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on >>> page 3. >>> >>> I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on >>> page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?" >>> >>> I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment >>> Ad26R25 on page 5. >>> >>> On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from >>> me: CG1 and CG16. >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been >>> working on the Academy WG around the same time. :) >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: >>> cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >>> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>> Doria >>> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: >>> cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For >>> your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have added a few more comments. >>> >>> avri >>> > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship

1 0

Timeline of ccWG including public comments.
by Bart Boswinkel July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

Dear all, Please find includedIncluded two versions of the timeline and schedule for deliverables of ccWG. Version 1 Assumptions The tentative timeline of the ICG and ccWG schedule are included, with no link between the two. Main schedule blocks of work for ccWG: 1. Adoption of charter and call for volunteers 2. Identification of Issues ccWG will work on identification of Issues first (8 weeks) + GENERAL public comment period of 40 days + 3 weeks to summarize and discuss results of public comment ( is NOT specific for ccTLD) Assumed that the SO and AC do NOT need to support the scope of issues identified by the WG. 3. Draft Proposal In parallel to Public comment around issues the ccWG will commence its work on draft proposal: duration 10 weeks + GENERAL public comments etc. 4.Support SO and AC The decision Mechanism as envisioned in the charter, assuming full support by all participating SO and AC of Final report. Version 2 Link between ICG tentative timeline and schedule + work plan as above for ccWG Kind regards, Bart

1 0

For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting
by Marika Konings July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

Dear All, As discussed during our meeting, please find attached the latest version of the draft charter, both in redline and clean version. Please note that I've attempted to capture the DT's agreement on the composition of the CWG concerning members and observers in section III as well as changed ccWG to CWG (per my previous email).In the clean version, I've also highlighted those sections that were specifically called out during the call as requiring more discussion, in addition to other comments / edits. Please also find the notes from today's meeting below.Notes, recording, and chat transcript from today's meeting are available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/hbrhAg. Best regards, Marika Notes / Action Items 21/7: * ICG timeline is still tentative and will need to be further discussed and considered by ICG - issues such as public comment and consultation has not been factored in * Outreach / education needed on how naming relationship with IANA differs from other communities which may also be reflected in proposals that will eventually be submitted * Not the role of the ICG to develop proposals or choose from competing proposals according to charter * Draft timeline does not allow for resolution of possible issues or testing, incl. no transition window Composition of ccWG * Members (from chartering organizations)- consider keeping it relatively small to ensure being able to make progress (min. 2, max 3-5 from each chartering organization). Observers - consider leaving it open (can participate in conversations, but not responsible for getting the work done). * SO/AC/SG/C should consider opening up their processes so that others interested could also join as members who are not necessarily formal members of SO/AC/SG/C * Should this CWG redirect any requests from other communities to participate to their respective groups? * Proposal to have chartering organizations have min. 2, max of 5 of representatives on the CWG. Open to observers from all communities. Make CWG operations as transparent and open as possible for all, both with regard to F2F as well as online meetings. * Observers can provide input, but should decisions need to be made, only named members can provide input at that stage. - make sure to clarify this in the charter Public consultations * At least one, if not two public comment forums Involvement of the GAC * Reach out to the GAC and re-invite them (noting renewed committment to participate in community efforts following increase in GAC membership in ICG) Development of workplan and timelines * Consider how to provide feedback to ICG on timeline (end of year deadline may not be feasible) * Consider having input ready following ICANN meeting in Marrakech as a possible alternative - what are other possible milestones in interim timeframe? Consider providing that feedback to ICG. * Should work on development of charter be done in parallel with initial work of CWG or does charter need to be approved first? Might be difficult for CWG to commence without charter nailed down. Maybe some of the administrative elements could be commenced earlier, but the substantive work can only begin once the charter has been approved. * Staff to develop draft timeline for public consultations by next week's meeting Charter (Edits in real time) * The focus is on names but will not be limited exclusively to names. * Further comment on email list: > * Accountability > * Role of Maintainer

8 17

Draft Agenda Meeting Monday 28 July 2014, 13.00 UTC
by Bart Boswinkel July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda for the DT meeting Monday 28 July, 13.00 UTC. Kind regards, Bart Draft Agenda 1. Welcome and roll-call 2. Confirmation of meeting notes and action items (included in Annex A) 3. Timeline Approval of charter and call/appointment of volunteers WG (In order to adopt charter in time, organize membership of the WG itself and have a first full-blown face to face meeting in LA, the draft charter needs to be completed by 14 August, order of approval will be ccNSO( 21 August), ALAC ( 26 August), SSAC ( 2 September) and GNSO ( 4 September) , see Annex B)) 4. Timelines and coordination with ICG 5. Run-through latest version of draft charter 6. AOB 7. Closure Annex A Meeting notes and action items DT meeting 21 July Notes / Action Items 21/7 * ICG timeline is still tentative and will need to be further discussed and considered by ICG - issues such as public comment and consultation has not been factored in * Outreach / education needed on how naming relationship with IANA differs from other communities which may also be reflected in proposals that will eventually be submitted * Not the role of the ICG to develop proposals or choose from competing proposals according to charter * Draft timeline does not allow for resolution of possible issues or testing, incl. no transition window Composition of ccWG * Members (from chartering organizations)- consider keeping it relatively small to ensure being able to make progress (min. 2, max 3-5 from each chartering organization). Observers - consider leaving it open (can participate in conversations, but not responsible for getting the work done). * SO/AC/SG/C should consider opening up their processes so that others interested could also join as members who are not necessarily formal members of SO/AC/SG/C * Should this CWG redirect any requests from other communities to participate to their respective groups? * Proposal to have chartering organizations have min. 2, max of 5 of representatives on the CWG. Open to observers from all communities. Make CWG operations as transparent and open as possible for all, both with regard to F2F as well as online meetings. * Observers can provide input, but should decisions need to be made, only named members can provide input at that stage. - make sure to clarify this in the charter Public consultations * At least one, if not two public comment forums Involvement of the GAC * Reach out to the GAC and re-invite them (noting renewed committment to participate in community efforts following increase in GAC membership in ICG) Development of workplan and timelines * Consider how to provide feedback to ICG on timeline (end of year deadline may not be feasible) * Consider having input ready following ICANN meeting in Marrakech as a possible alternative - what are other possible milestones in interim timeframe? Consider providing that feedback to ICG. * Should work on development of charter be done in parallel with initial work of CWG or does charter need to be approved first? Might be difficult for CWG to commence without charter nailed down. Maybe some of the administrative elements could be commenced earlier, but the substantive work can only begin once the charter has been approved. * Staff to develop draft timeline for public consultations by next week's meeting Charter (Edits in real time) * The focus is on names but will not be limited exclusively to names. * Further comment on email list: * Accountability * Role of Maintainer Annex B Charter Approval Timelines Possible timing for GNSO Council consideration / adoption of charter: * 4 September GNSO Council meeting - motion & charter would need to be submitted by 25 August at the latest to be considered * 25 September GNSO Council meeting - motion & charter would need to be submitted by 15 September at the latest to be considered * 15 October GNSO Council meeting (LA meeting) - motion & charter would need to be submitted by 5 October at the latest to be considered Possible timing for ccNSO consideration: * 21 August * 25 September * 21 October ( LA meeting) In case necessary e-mail vote (will take one week to vote) Secondly, call for volunteers will take 3 weeks (call-for volunteers 1-2 weeks, appointment by Council through email approval) Possible timing for ALAC consideration: * The deadlines for the ALAC (after one week's review by the At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function WG) are: * 26 August ALAC meeting - motion & charter would need to be submitted to the ALAC by 22 August at the latest to be considered and to At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of the US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function WG by 15 August) * 23 September ALAC meeting - motion & charter would need to be submitted to the ALAC by 19 September at the latest to be considered and to At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of the US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function WG by 12 September) Possible timing for SSAC consideration / adoption of charter: * 16-18 September SSAC Workshop - motion & charter would need to be submitted by 02 September at the latest to be considered * 14 October SSAC meeting (LA meeting) - motion & charter would need to be submitted by 30 September at the latest to be considered * 13 November SSAC meeting - motion & charter would need to be submitted by 30 October at the latest to be considered

2 1

Possible timing for charter consideration by SO/ACs
by Marika Konings July 21, 2014

July 21, 2014

Dear All, Following up on the possible timing for consideration of the charter by the different SO/ACs currently involved, please see timelines below. Should the DT be able to finalise its work on the charter by 15 August, this would allow GNSO Council consideration on 4 September, ccNSO Council consideration on 21 August, ALAC consideration on 26 August and SSAC consideration on 16-18 September. Best regards, Marika Possible timing for GNSO Council consideration / adoption of charter: * 4 September GNSO Council meeting motion & charter would need to be submitted by 25 August at the latest to be considered * 25 September GNSO Council meeting motion & charter would need to be submitted by 15 September at the latest to be considered * 15 October GNSO Council meeting (LA meeting) - motion & charter would need to be submitted by 5 October at the latest to be considered Possible timing for ccNSO consideration: * 21 August * 25 September * 21 October ( LA meeting) In case necessary e-mail vote (will take one week to vote) Secondly, call for volunteers will take 3 weeks (call-for volunteers 1-2 weeks, appointment by Council through email approval) Possible timing for ALAC consideration: The deadlines for the ALAC (after one week¹s review by the At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function WG) are: * 26 August ALAC meeting motion & charter would need to be submitted to the ALAC by 22 August at the latest to be considered and to At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of the US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function WG by 15 August) * 23 September ALAC meeting motion & charter would need to be submitted to the ALAC by 19 September at the latest to be considered and to At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of the US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function WG by 12 September) Possible timing for SSAC consideration / adoption of charter: * 16-18 September SSAC Workshop motion & charter would need to be submitted by 02 September at the latest to be considered * 14 October SSAC meeting (LA meeting) motion & charter would need to be submitted by 30 September at the latest to be considered * 13 November SSAC meeting - motion & charter would need to be submitted by 30 October at the latest to be considered

2 1

For your review - Charter Template
by Marika Konings July 21, 2014

July 21, 2014

Dear All, Following our call on Monday, please find attached a first draft of the charter template for your review. Please note that Allan volunteered to provide some draft language for the first three sections (problem statement, goals & objectives, scope) which we'll insert as soon as available. However, to already allow you some time to review some of the other sections which, as discussed, have been populated with language from the initial draft as well as the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group on principles for CWGs, we already wanted to circulate this version now. Note that I've taken the liberty to insert some comments in areas where the DT will need to make some further determinations, provided there is support for the draft language provided. You are encouraged to share any comments / proposed edits you may have ahead of Monday's meeting. Best regards, Marika

8 11