May 2015 - CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Time frame inquiry (corrected)
by Alissa Cooper June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

My apologies, the first version of this email that was sent was missing one question. Please find the corrected version below. ---- Dear CWG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling <http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate a current estimate. We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed

2 1

Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
by Duchesneau, Stephanie June 1, 2015

June 1, 2015

Hi All, In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

11 25

FW: [client com] Separation Review and Related Documents from Sidley
by Grace Abuhamad May 30, 2015

May 30, 2015

Forwarding Sidley¹s work on Separation Process. From: <Flanagan>, Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Friday, May 22, 2015 at 5:47 PM To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] Separation Review and Related Documents from Sidley Dear All, Attached please find the following documents: 1. Our comments to the Separation Process document. 2. An updated document addressing CCWG dependencies to reflect the Separation Process. This document is an extract from the CCWG proposal and is marked to show proposed changes. Consider whether you would want to communicate these new dependencies to CCWG through a comment letter to their proposal. 3. A revised punch list document. Please note that this is not Staff-maintained punch list. Instead it is the Sidley version where we added in the inputs we received from Greg from the design teams. We also attach a redline so Staff can see what changes we are proposing and those changes can be carried over to the master punch list being maintained by Staff. A few notes on the punch list: a. We have identified new items arising out of the design team input (those are in yellow); b. We have added the PTI item we discussed regarding input from ICANN finance/tax on the tax exempt status of PTI (#1A); and c. We suggested specific wording changes to the CWG proposal to address the design team inputs on the punch list. Grace could you please forward to CWG? Best regards, Holly, Sharon and Josh SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> <http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP **************************************************************************** ************************ This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************** ************************

3 2

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #55 - 29 May (Session 6)
by Brenda Brewer May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA High Intensity Meeting, Session 6 - 29 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%2355 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: DTs aim to finalize responses to PC and documents/edits to draft proposal by Monday 1 June at 12:00 UTC Action: Staff to provide updated draft for sections iv, v, vi in draft to be circulated for Tuesday's call (2 June) Notes Overall Timeline / Milestones * 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - review final proposal (sign-off?) * 8 June - submission to SO/ACs * 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - Next steps, communication, other issues * W/C 8 June - Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June? * 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires Notes: Eduardo Diaz on audio only 1. Recap & Continuation of Prior Meeting * Worked with outputs from DT-N and DT-SR/X IFRT * Agreement to add ccNSO member to IFRT * Alternates -- 2 options: members could each have alternates (doubling the size) OR member could name alternates in case of substitution * These groups are open and transparent processes so anyone can observe proceedings * Clarification: No additional gTLD representation S[C]WG * Geographic diversity where possible * Skillset recommendations * Expansion proposition: 3 gTLD registries & 3 ccTLD registries (one additional ccTLD registry and one additional gTLD registry). The registries must ensure georgraphic diversity. * This group is also open and transparent so anyone can observe proceedings * Recognising that at the time the SWG will be invoked this will be at the end of a substantial process. As such, the SWG is expected to move will be required to move forward with expediency and due diligence. Separation Costs * Transition costs and ongoing operation costs * Sufficient portion of registry fees would be dedicated to the IANA services which would carry over should there be to the new operator should there be a separation, but this should not result in an increase in fees. May need to be evaluated periodically to assess whether there have been changes in budget. * ICANN maintains responsibility for funding of the IANA functions services whether in house or not (for any future state of the IANA functions) Key points on Separation Costs * 1. in the event of a future transition, ICANN would fund transition * 2. ICANN is responsible for ongoing funding of IANA operation & services * 3. no raise in fees directly associated with that 2. Design Teams Action: DTs aim to finalize responses to PC and documents/edits to draft proposal by Monday 1 June at 12:00 UTC 3. Outstanding Sections Action: Staff to provide updated draft for sections iv, v, vi in draft to be circulated for Tuesday's call (2 June) 4. Client Committee * Client Committee to ask Sidley to assist CWG with assuring condionality with CCWG-Accountability proposal * For ICANN 53 in BA, Holly will cover CCWG Accountability and may not be able to fully cover both groups, so request for Sharon Flanagan attendance as well. * Assistance with Bylaws -- making sure changes are clear and known * Punch List reviewed and checked for completeness (CWG staff to compile first) 5. Term Sheet * Term Sheet is available here: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Term%20Sheet%20-%… 0.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1432138454000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Term%20Sheet%20-%… .docx?version=1&modificationDate=1432138454000&api=v2 * The Term Sheet is a draft set of terms that will be implemented in the ICANN-PTI Contract (foundation on which the contract could be based) * Comments on Term Sheet due on Monday June 1 at 23:59 UTC 6. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment * Coordination between groups * We received comments from the CCWG Chairs and CWG Chairs plan to respond to their public comment as well by 3 June 7. Sign off on Final Proposal * Draft Final on Tuesday 2 June * 2nd reading and sign off on Thursday 4 June * No vote (preferred) -- instead a process of non-objection * If there are objections to signing off, we should seek explanations (and where possible try to remedy them) * Distinguish between SO/AC approval and CWG approval 8. AOB: James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: Need to discuss delivery of a draft timeline for implementation to ICG at some stage today if possible. * Part of Section IV -- work in progress

1 0

Updated public comment action items summary
by Marika Konings May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached the updated summary of public comment action items as updated with the CWG responses during call #3. Best regards, Marika

1 1

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #54 - 29 May (Session 5)
by Brenda Brewer May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA High Intensity Meeting, Session 5 - 29 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%2354 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action (Sidley): consider another term for 'inside'/'outside' Board Action (Stephanie) -- will do an overview of draft to make sure clarification/scope for naming functions is clear. Notes Overall Timeline / Milestones * 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - review final proposal (sign-off?) * 8 June - submission to SO/ACs * 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - Next steps, communication, other issues * W/C 8 June - Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June? * 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires Current schedule for rest of meetings: * Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) - Remaining open issues including implementation and timescales Notes: * Focus now on DC * The function of the PTI Board is to operate the subsidiary to meet, at minimum, the statutorily requirements for the subsidiary. In addition the PTI Board will have to ensure that the PTI as the subsidiary performs to meet the conditions of the contract which will encapsulate all the SLEs and other requirements that PTI is expected to meet. * The provisional construct of the PTI Board would be a range of 3-5 people with, for example, the President of GDD, CTO, IANA Managing Director, and two additional directors. The CWG will consider making recommendations as to the skill set of PTI Board directors. * A suggestion, consistent with the provisional construct, which received some traction is as follows: ICANN Board not CEO selects the 3 members of the PTI board from among ICANN employees with advice and consent of CEO; and also selects 2 members of the PTI Board from among ICANN Board members. * Tested this construct against the Public Comments, mindful that the PC was issued before there were further details on PTI Clarification on what 'inside board' means: * From 13 May memo: "By “insider board,” we mean a PTI board comprised of a majority of directors who are employed by ICANN, including members of ICANN management responsible for oversight of the IANA functions." * In the 13 May memo, assumption that ICANN was selecting PTI Board. * Not meant as a pejorative term Action (Sidley): consider another term for 'inside'/'outside' Board "Separation Process" * Chuck Gomes proposed some edits/clarifications * Composition for the IFRT and the SCWG would be the same Composition The SCWG/IFRT would be composed as follows : ● ccNSO - 1 ● ccTLDs (non-ccNSO) - 1 ● Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) - 2 ● Registrar Stakeholder Group (RsSG) - 1 ● Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) - 1 ● Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) - 1 ● Government Advisory Committee (GAC) - 1 ● Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) - 1 ● Root Server Operators Advisory Committee (RSSAC) - 1 ● At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) - 1 ● CSC Liaison (selected by CSC) - 1 ● Special IFR Team Liaison (selected by IFR Team) - 1 ● Liaison from Protocol operational community - 1 (tbd with their approval) ● Liaison from Numbers operational community - 1 (tbd with their approval) Composition is to remain an unresolved items, Suggestion that regional cc organizations could provide input to ccNSO in selection/appointment of representative. Scope of IFRT Action (Stephanie) -- will do an overview of draft to make sure clarification/scope for naming functions is clear. Home of IFRT within ICANN so as to inherit resources and expertise The group could make a recommendation on the "fit for purpose" so that appointing committees have an idea of the skillset needed to make appointments. Review must be initiated by ICANN Board and approved by ICANN Board -- these are 'checks along the way' for governance of the organization Open Issues: - initiation of special reviews (not having to go through Board approval; community consulation as base for board approval; is Board approval a barrier timewise?) - composition of IFRT and SIFR Views of the group on unresolved issues: * Chuck supports expansion of SCWG composition (with both ccTLD and gTLD expansion given the specifics of the tasks at hand) * Martin still thinks that ccTLDs would be under-represented on IFRT but could live with increasing to 2 ccNSO reps instead of one. Agreement with Chuck on expansion of SCWG * Avri has no strong issue with addition of cc member on IFRT, but concerned about alternates and other forms of expansion. Recap: * Make sure both groups are fit for purpose so, the CWG should specifiy skillsets for each group * One additional ccNSO rep is possible on IFRT Document resources: All Client Committee documents are here: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #53 - 29 May (Session 4)
by Brenda Brewer May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA High Intensity Meeting, Session 4 - 29 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%2353 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action (Sidley): look into composition for PTI Board to be majority ICANN Board members, and consider whether this is an inside or outside board in the legal structure. Notes Overall Timeline / Milestones * 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - review final proposal (sign-off?) * 8 June - submission to SO/ACs * 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - Next steps, communication, other issues * W/C 8 June - Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June? * 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires Current schedule for rest of meetings: * Meeting #54 (10h00 to 12h00 UTC) - Accountability mechanisms * Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) - Remaining open issues including implementation and timescales Notes: PTI Board comments start on page 21 Level Set: * Public Comment 1 - December 2014: Satisfaction with IANA; Retain IANA with ICANN; Legal advice on structure required; Comments on both too much and too little detail * ICANN52 Singapore - February 2015: Entered with 4 structures, left with 7; Lack of operational specifics criticized; No legal advice in place; Established new working methods * F2F Istanbul - 25-27 March 2015: Entered with 7 structures; Physical presence of and support from Sidley; Spirit of compromise and recognition of need to make progress * April High Intensity: Integration and finalization priority 1 DTs; Sidley Punch List; Finalize key content of proposal for 2nd public comment Current status * We did significant work on this after we released the draft for Public Comment. Much of the legal advice came in after we published the draft. Group has more information now. * With Sidley advice, the CWG took a construct forward. The construct considered is a PBC with, as a backup, an LLC configured to mimic a PBC * The function of the PTI Board is to operate the subsidiary to meet, at minimum, the statutorily requirements for the subsidiary. In addition the PTI Board will have to ensure that the PTI as the subsidiary performs to meet the conditions of the contract which will encapsulate all the SLEs and other requirements that PTI is expected to meet. * The provisional construct of the PTI Board would be a range of 3-5 people with, for example, the President of GDD, CTO, IANA Managing Director, and two additional directors. The CWG will consider making recommendations as to the skill set of PTI Board directors. * A suggestion, consistent with the provisional construct, which received some traction is as follows: ICANN Board not CEO selects the PTI board from among ICANN employees (3) with advice and consent of CEO and also ICANN Board members (2) * The CWG will investigate whether ICANN Board members as PTI Board members are considered 'insiders' or not from a legal perspective (legal input requested). * The CWG is not in a position to appoint representatives from the other operational communities, but notes that the 3-5 construct that is being proposed would create an opening should other operational communities decide to join. The CWG considers the IANA function to be operational in nature and has been be mindful of that throughout. Action (Sidley): look into composition for PTI Board to be majority ICANN Board members, and consider whether this is an inside or outside board in the legal structure. Document resources: * All Client Committee documents are here: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee * PTI Board and Costs (7 May): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/PTI%20-%20Board%2… f?version=1&modificationDate=1431531205000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/PTI%20-%20Board%2… ?version=1&modificationDate=1431531205000&api=v2 * Comparison of PBC vs. LLC (7 May): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Comparison%20of%2… ion=1&modificationDate=1431531191000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Comparison%20of%2… on=1&modificationDate=1431531191000&api=v2 * Memorandum - Post-Transition IANA Board Stress Tests (13 May): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Memorandum%20-%20… 0Board%20Stress%20Tests_13May.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1431893980000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Memorandum%20-%20… Board%20Stress%20Tests_13May.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1431893980000&api=v2 * PTI Entity Structure (13 May): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/PTI%20Entity%20St… n=1&modificationDate=1431893995000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/PTI%20Entity%20St… =1&modificationDate=1431893995000&api=v2

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #50 - 28 May (Session 1)
by Brenda Brewer May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA High Intensity Meeting, Session 1 - 28 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%2350 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: Staff to update Public Comment page Notes Overall Timeline / Milestones * 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - review final proposal (sign-off?) * 8 June - submission to SO/ACs * 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - Next steps, communication, other issues * W/C 8 June - Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June? * 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires Audio only: Olivier Crepin-Leblond; Eduardo Diaz 1. Opening Remarks 2. Overall Timeline / Milestones (see above) 3. Plan for High Intensity Meetings * Keep objectives: provide substance in finalizating porposal and absorb the public comment input * Necessary level of detail needed and closure of key items * Focus chat conversation on topic at hand * Key Sidley memos are 7 May and 13 May, available here: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee * Review tool with color coded items Plan for rest of meetings: * Meeting #51 (15h00 to 17h00 UTC) - Aim to address overarching structure and supporting accountability mechanisms * Meeting #52 (19h00 to 21h00 UTC) - Further work on Public Comments detail * Meeting #53 (07h00 to 09h00 UTC) - Scope of PTI * Meeting #54 (10h00 to 12h00 UTC) - PTI Board Composition * Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) - Remaining open issues including implementation 4. Level Set & Capture Journey to date * Public Comment 1 - December 2014: Satisfaction with IANA; Retain IANA with ICANN; Legal advice on structure required; Comments on both too much and too little detail * ICANN52 Singapore - February 2015: Entered with 4 structures, left with 7; Lack of operational specifics criticized; No legal advice in place; Established new working methods * F2F Istanbul - 25-27 March 2015: Entered with 7 structures; Physical presence of and support from Sidley; Spirit of compromise and recognition of need to make progress * April High Intensity: Integration and finalization priority 1 DTs; Sidley Punch List; Finalize key content of proposal for 2nd public comment 5. Public Comments a. Mechanics Out for a week / no objections to mechanics; Some revisions to staff comments b. Areas of Agreement CSC -- issue with IFRT reviewing CSC in its operational capacity c. DT Updates / Responses to Public Comment * DT-O has reviewed budget-related comments and will send to CWG shortly. * Some implementation issues are not foreseen since they are ICG/CRISP/IETF considerations * Need to distinguish between CWG and ICG implementation * DT-M working on list and will share with DT-C 6. AOB Comments that are addressed to the CCWG-Accountability Active work is ongoing to review the public comment. The group seeks to make available this draft so that comments. The first draft is available at <https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg> https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg. Action: Staff to update Public Comment page 7. Closing

3 2

Support for PTI and PTI board composition in the public comments
by Milton L Mueller May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

I wanted to get a better sense of how strongly or weakly the public comments came out on the basic PTI model, and also to get a sense of community sentiment on composition of the board. So I went through the comments and came up with the following. I think this information will be useful as we enter into the "intensive work week." Public comments on support for PTI model ==================================== FAVOR: 31 OPPOSE: 10 Not explicitly addressed: 6 * Of those who OPPOSE PTI in their comments, 4 wanted more separation, 2 wanted no separation, and 4 saw no point to PTI-style separation. * Only two entities, AuDA and SIDN, expressed opposition to PTI and preferred to keep IANA completely within ICANN. ALAC expressed a preference for keeping it in ICANN but saw PTI as an acceptable compromise. * Those who opposed PTI because it was not true separation were DotConnect Africa, Govt of India, Govt of Italy, and the research Center at Natl Law U of Delhi Based on this, I would say we can move ahead confidently with PTI. Those who don't want to create a separate entity at all are a very small minority. Opposition comes from those who either think that the separation of IANA does not go far enough, or those who think that such separation does not accomplish anything. The latter comments tended to emphasize how PTI would be under ICANN's control anyway. Thus, if anything, the comments show that most of the opposition or concerns about the model are wishing for a stronger separation. PTI as a compromise middle ground seems to work - it is difficult to conceive of a model that would add support given the current distribution of opinion. Public Comments on PTI board composition ===================================== Favors ICANN control: 13 Favors an independent or mixed board: 7 Asks to clarify role of board: 3 Not explicitly addressed: 25 Unfortunately most comments did not explicitly address the composition or control of the board. Among the 20 who did, 13 favor ICANN control of it. Those commentators tend to be from business interests from the US and registries and registrars in the domain name industry. Civil society interests and developing countries are solidly for a more independent PTI board. A couple of commentators called for a mixed board, with a majority of ICANN appointees and the rest independents. which may be a good compromise. The fact that only a minority of the comments directly address the question, however, shows that the issue is not as "ripe" as it could be, and that the community as a whole is not settled on this issue in my opinion. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

8 9

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #52 - 28 May (Session 3)
by Brenda Brewer May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA High Intensity Meeting, Session 3 - 28 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%2352 Kind regards, Brenda Notes Overall Timeline / Milestones * 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - review final proposal (sign-off?) * 8 June - submission to SO/ACs * 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - Next steps, communication, other issues * W/C 8 June - Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June? * 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires Current schedule for rest of meetings: * Meeting #53 (07h00 to 09h00 UTC) - Scope of PTI, PTI Board Composition * Meeting #54 (10h00 to 12h00 UTC) - Accountability mechanisms * Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) - Remaining open issues including implementation and timescales Notes: Comments are being addressed in document directly

1 0