March 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Updated template Design Team B ( IAP)
by Bart Boswinkel March 5, 2015

March 5, 2015

Dear all, Please included the updated template for DT B ( IAP) following discussion on the first draft. On behalf of Allan and Maarten, Kind regards, Bart

1 0

CSC Design Team Scoping document
by Donna Austin March 5, 2015

March 5, 2015

All Attached is the CSC Design Team scoping document prepared by Staffan Jonson and myself. It is our intention to speak to this document during the next CWG call. However, I would welcome comments and feedback prior to the call that may help me understand where there are potential issues of concern or areas of agreement. I would add that this exercise is a little challenging absent an understanding of other yet to be determined elements of the CWG proposal. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

2 1

Proposed Agenda for 5 March at 11:00 UTC (Meeting #26)
by Grace Abuhamad March 4, 2015

March 4, 2015

Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for the meeting on 5 March at 11:00 UTC: Proposed Agenda 05/03 1. Opening Remarks 2. Update from DT-A (Paul Kane) 3. Update from DT-B (Allan MacGillivray) 4. Review of Scope Document DT-C (Donna Austin) 5. Review & Finalize CWG Principles Document (Martin Boyle) 6. Update on Client Committee (Greg Shatan) 7. AOB 8. Closing remarks & Review of Action Items Outstanding Action Items Action (Chairs): Will get back to group with DT list and priorities Action (Elise/GAC): Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team Action (Donna): CSC Scope document produced before next meeting Action (Martin): Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin Best, Grace

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #25 03 March
by Brenda Brewer March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #25 03 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890431 Action Items * Action: Chairs will get back to group with DT list and priorities * Action: Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team * Action: Scope document produced before next meeting * Action: Call for volunteers to join DTs * Action: Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin * Action: Stephanie to put forth wording proposal for multistakeholder text Notes 1. Opening Remarks * No outstanding action items * No longer RFP subgroups * DT groups will work * Working on getting legal advice 2. Final Review of Design Team Method * List of DTs: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List * Are there "rules" for volunteering? If there are too many people who want to join a DT, Chairs will do selection (expertise and time commitment based) 3. Review scope of DTA and DTB and launch * Service Levels Expectations (lead: Paul Kane) * IAP (lead: Allan MacGillivray) * CSC (lead: Donna Austin) * Each team will have its own mailing list which will be publically archived SLE Team * Paul Kane: SLE group will review the status quo * 3 gTLD reps: Jeff Eckhaus; Jeff Neuman; and Elaine Prius. * 3 ccTLD reps: Jay Daley, (AP Region), Patricio Poblete (LAC Region) and Paul Kane (Europe) * IANA staff and SSAC can provide liaisons but that may need to be handled privately * First slide is data taken from IANA site * IANA service is efficient when it comes to sending NTIA requests (when NTIA is removed, the delay is removed) * Deliverable (part 1): Identify IANA workflow process and document it * At the moment the group is not looking at how SLAs will be amended in the future. IAP Team * Allan MacGillivray sends his apologies (Lise will present for him) * Team includes: Maarten Simon and Elise Lindeberg * Action: Would like an additional GAC person CSC Team * Donna Austin will lead * Staffan Jonson has volunteered * Action: Scope document produced before next meeting 4. Review Structure of CWG Proposal v2.0 * sent out prior to meeting last Thursday, but many commented that they required more time to review * now that time has passed, are there any questions? * Still possible to send in proposals for DTs (and scoping document please) 5. Update on Client Committee work Update from Greg Shatan * Over the course of past several days, the Committee met with the 3 shortlisted firms * In each case, the corporate governance expert was the main focus/team lead * Had debrief call on Monday afternoon (John Jeffrey; Sam Eisner; Kevin Espinola from ICANN were there but reclused themselves from decisions) * Front runner has emerged, and focus is now on 'nuts&bolts' of engagement: 1) matching the need for public and transparent process; and 2) structure of fee relationship, engagement letter, etc. * Greg is checking with firms before releasing names of firms * All firms understand political situation in DC * No firm budget but the idea is to manage this in a cost-effective way * End of this week or early next week for engagement 6. Discuss Principles - Path Forward Presented by Martin. * Review of gii - currently two options. CWG to identify whether there is a strong preference for or objection to either option. * Action: Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin * Review of evi - * For the remaining items, probably easiest to start at top of document go through open comments from group * Action: Stephanie to put forth wording proposal for multistakeholder text 7. AOB & Review of Action Items * Action: Chairs will get back to group with DT list and priorities * Action: Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team * Action: Scope document produced before next meeting * Action: Call for volunteers to join DTs * Action: Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin * Action: Stephanie to put forth wording proposal for multistakeholder text 8. Closing Remarks Next call is Thursday at 11:00 UTC.

1 0

DT-A - Initial PPT - IANA Stats
by Berry Cobb March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

CWG, Please find attached the PPT slides for DT-A as presented by Paul Kane during today's CWG call. These will also be posted in the WIKI shortly. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

1 0

Fwd: Client Committee -- Further Update
by Greg Shatan March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Kieren, Please see my inline responses below. Greg On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren(a)kierenmccarthy.com> wrote: > Just to follow up on this from a week ago. > > > > As noted before, we will ask the firms' permission to reveal their > identities at this stage and for permission to circulate their > submissions. > > Has this happened? > Yes > Have you asked the firms? > Yes > Have they responded? > Two have responded (positively). The third will get back to me -- this is not a snap answer to give (for any of the firms). > How was the question phrased? > Something like -- Do you think you could allow us to disclose your firm's identity or the materials you provided to us? > If they do not respond, will you publish the names regardless? > If they don't respond, I'll follow up until they do. > > > > The Client Committee has now scheduled conference calls with each of > the three "short list" firms. These meetings are scheduled for Thursday, > February 26, Friday, February 27, and Monday, March 2. The calls are > expected to last 60-90 minutes. > > > We will also make clear to them that, if chosen, the representation > should be designed to meet transparency and accountability standards beyond > those typically encountered in the attorney-client relationship (which tend > to value confidentiality and the maintenance of the attorney-client > privilege) > > > I note that all three meetings have now occurred. > > Was this clarification over openness made clear to each firm? > Yes > How was that done? > In a fairly substantial conversation. > Did any of the firms express reservations? > Not per se, but each indicated they would need to consider the issue and would work with us to configure the representation to meet these needs. > What was the agreed resolution? > Each call was 60-90 minutes and we had plenty of ground to cover. It would be both impossible and premature to resolve that issue at this stage. However, each firm did bring up some ideas on how they might approach this. > > > > I expect that we will schedule a call for as soon as possible after the > 3 meetings take place to discuss and compare the firms and move forward > toward engaging one of the firms on our behalf. > > > When will this call be? > A debrief call took place Monday, not long after the last law firm conference call. We are trying to keep this moving, and we want to discuss the firms before our next meeting today, so that we could bring a somewhat considered set of views back to the CWG. > Will you be making that call public? > We'll discuss how best to share the discussion and outcomes of that discussion. It's not my decision to make alone. > Will you be providing minutes of the meetings so far? > I assume you are referring to the meetings of the Committee and not the meetings with the firms. I've provided updates on prior meetings. See above regarding Monday's call. We will also be discussing how to change our working methods, given the difference in task and approach between hiring a law firm and being involved in getting advice from them (in an unusually transparent manner), However, we'll need the input of the firm we hire to finalize these revised working methods. > When do you expect this to be resolved and a decision made? > As quickly as possible -- this week, if at all possible. > > > I also note that there were a number of questions from John Poole a number > of days ago that have so far gone unanswered, including several about the > role that ICANN's legal team is taking in the selection of an independent > law firm that is due to review ICANN's own legal position. > I'll go back and look at those questions as soon as possible. > > Can you confirm that you will answer these questions in due course? > I just did. > > > Thanks > > Your're most welcome. > > > Kieren > Greg > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> As soon as we can, you will. >> >> Greg >> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for this helpful update. Look forward to learning the names of >>> the firms being considered. >>> >>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal >>> Virtualaw LLC >>> 1155 F Street, NW >>> Suite 1050 >>> Washington, DC 20004 >>> 202-559-8597/Direct >>> 202-559-8750/Fax >>> 202-255-6172/Cell >>> >>> Twitter: @VLawDC >>> >>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> All: >>> >>> The Client Committee has now scheduled conference calls with each of >>> the three "short list" firms. These meetings are scheduled for Thursday, >>> February 26, Friday, February 27, and Monday, March 2. The calls are >>> expected to last 60-90 minutes. >>> >>> In addition to the Client Committee, Leon Sanchez, a member of the >>> CCWG legal committee, will be sitting in on most, if not all, of the >>> calls. Samantha Eisner, a member of the ICANN legal staff, will also be on >>> the calls. >>> >>> Each of the firms have seen the legal scoping document and the >>> Singapore discussion document, and provided a link to the CWG's wiki page >>> They were also informed of today's US Senate hearing beforehand. >>> >>> As noted before, we will ask the firms' permission to reveal their >>> identities at this stage and for permission to circulate their >>> submissions. We will also make clear to them that, if chosen, the >>> representation should be designed to meet transparency and accountability >>> standards beyond those typically encountered in the attorney-client >>> relationship (which tend to value confidentiality and the maintenance of >>> the attorney-client privilege) >>> >>> I expect that we will schedule a call for as soon as possible after >>> the 3 meetings take place to discuss and compare the firms and move forward >>> toward engaging one of the firms on our behalf. We may also have further >>> prep/debrief calls around the conferences. >>> >>> In a addition, we are in the process of preparing documents to >>> memorialize our initial selection criteria/process, so that it can be >>> better understood. We will keep you informed of the process as it >>> progresses. If there are any specific subjects you would like me to try to >>> cover, please let me know. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* >>> >>> *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* >>> >>> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* >>> >>> *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 >>> >>> *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 >>> >>> *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* >>> >>> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* >>> >>> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4299/9172 - Release Date: 02/24/15 >>> >>> <ATT00001.c> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* >> >> *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* >> >> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* >> >> *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 >> >> *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 >> >> *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* >> >> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* >> >> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> > -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

2 1

Late Arrival
by Greg Shatan March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

I am likely to be late to the call by as much as an hour due to a business meeting. Greg -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Design team list
by Alan Greenberg March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

I thought that the RFP groups were dissolved and no longer exist. Alan At 02/03/2015 06:50 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hi, > >Thanks for the share, 2 minor comments: > >- Why do we need a design team E (SAC 69) isn't that the role of >RFP-4? Perhaps i miss-understood the purpose of the DT as i thought >their work is largely to build-up RFP-3 response. > >- I think DT "D" and "F" are almost related OR at least "D" can be a >subsection of "F" especially since D is a matter of answering the >Yes or No question and if yes then it goes over to F > >Regards > >On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Marika Konings ><<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: >For your information, all the information related to design teams has been >posted here: ><https://community.icann.org/x/pAknAw>https://community.icann.org/x/pAknAw. >Best regards, > >Marika >On 01/03/15 21:13, "Lise Fuhr" ><<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> wrote: > >Dear all, > >Here is as requested the list of design teams. This will also be available > >on the website. We will ensure that the list continuously is updated. > >Best regards, > >Jonathan & Lise >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: +2348035233535 >alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> ><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > >The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

4 3

Client Committee -- Further Update
by Greg Shatan March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

All: The Client Committee has now scheduled conference calls with each of the three "short list" firms. These meetings are scheduled for Thursday, February 26, Friday, February 27, and Monday, March 2. The calls are expected to last 60-90 minutes. In addition to the Client Committee, Leon Sanchez, a member of the CCWG legal committee, will be sitting in on most, if not all, of the calls. Samantha Eisner, a member of the ICANN legal staff, will also be on the calls. Each of the firms have seen the legal scoping document and the Singapore discussion document, and provided a link to the CWG's wiki page They were also informed of today's US Senate hearing beforehand. As noted before, we will ask the firms' permission to reveal their identities at this stage and for permission to circulate their submissions. We will also make clear to them that, if chosen, the representation should be designed to meet transparency and accountability standards beyond those typically encountered in the attorney-client relationship (which tend to value confidentiality and the maintenance of the attorney-client privilege) I expect that we will schedule a call for as soon as possible after the 3 meetings take place to discuss and compare the firms and move forward toward engaging one of the firms on our behalf. We may also have further prep/debrief calls around the conferences. In a addition, we are in the process of preparing documents to memorialize our initial selection criteria/process, so that it can be better understood. We will keep you informed of the process as it progresses. If there are any specific subjects you would like me to try to cover, please let me know. Greg -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

5 9

IAP DT Template
by Marika Konings March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Dear All, On behalf of Allan MacGillivray, please find attached the completed template for the Independent Appeals Panel for ccTLD delegations / redelegations. Best regards, Marika

3 5