February 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions
by Grace Abuhamad March 16, 2016

March 16, 2016

Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws¹ ³Notes to CWG² since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it¹s presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated ³note to CWG² at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn¹t have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation sub bullet ³Creation of PTI² At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley¹s role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: · ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). · But ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. · In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. · Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents · The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley¹s restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: · That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. · Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. · Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise

16 31

ICG seeking confirmation from CWG
by Alissa Cooper March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, We are writing to you to seek confirmation of whether or not the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations meets the accountability requirements outlined in the Response to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA Stewardship Transition from the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). As soon as possible, and preferably before March 1, please indicate to us whether or not the CCWG Accountability Proposal meets your requirements. Thank you, Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG

5 5

Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues
by Grace Abuhamad March 3, 2016

March 3, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship and ICANN Implementation Team, Please see attached the latest version of the responses to the Sidley Bylaws Matrix as well as a list of three currently unresolved issues for CWG-Stewardship input (also copied below for your convenience). The action assigned on the CWG-Stewardship call today was to share these documents with the group, and simultaneously with the ICANN implementation team for any input they may have. On the CWG-Stewardship call today, we outlined the three issues and had an initial, but non-conclusive, discussion about them. On the thresholds issue, Donna Austin suggests we go with current practices, i.e. simple majority, since Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO. Paul Kane agrees. Looking forward to your input, Grace A recap of the three issues presented on call (also in document attached): There are three issues for the CWG-Stewardship to address: Issue #1: Thresholds For the CSC Charter, the CCNSO and GNSO Councils must approve amendments. The DT leads noted that the intention is that the respective Councils (ccNSO and GNSO) would vote to ratify any proposed charter amendment/s and the threshold would be in accordance with their respective methods of operation. However, the current responses further suggest that, ³supermajority of both Councils would seem appropriate if this can be accommodated.² Staff would like to note that supermajority may not be consistent with current practice in the GNSO and CCNSO Councils. In the case of the GNSO, the default voting threshold is simple majority of each house. Should a supermajority vote be deemed appropriate for this purpose, the relevant section in the ICANN bylaws that details voting thresholds that differ from simple majority, would need to be updated. Does the CWG want to define a higher threshold for the CCNSO and GNSO councils or proceed with existing operating procedures within the Councils? Issue #2: Timing of the first IANA Function Review Paragraph (194) of the CWG Final Proposal provides that the IFR ³will not commence² until two years after this date, but Paragraph (301) provides that the initial IFR must be completed by this 2-year anniversary Current response: Paragraph 301 being focused on the IFR while Paragraph 194 being a timetable makes Paragraph 301 the determining one. However, Paragraphs 267/268 seem to confirm the ambiguity. Separately, Paragraph 194 does allow, however for a Special IFR sooner than 2 years if needed. CWG needs to choose: 1. The first IFR will not commence until two years after the Transition 2. The first IFR will be completed by the 2-year anniversary of the Transition Issue #3: Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR The CWG needs to consider specifying a forum and process for the Special IFR. Paragraphs (125) and (303) of the CWG Final Proposal provide that consideration of whether to trigger a Special IFR ³may² include a public comment period but is silent on who determines whether there should be a public comment period. If the CWG-Stewardship adopts the Empowered Community mechanism of the CCWG-Accountability, then the process for escalation includes a discussion forum. Would that be sufficient? If not, the CWG-Stewardship could mandate a standard ICANN public comment period before triggering a Special IFR.

4 4

FW: Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

All, Thank-you to everyone for the hard work and cooperation in getting this done! Lise & Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 29 February 2016 10:19 To: 'Grace Abuhamad' <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>; 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>; 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas(a)rickert.net>; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>; 'Patrik Fältström' <patrik(a)frobbit.se>; 'byron.holland(a)cira.ca' <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>; 'thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch' <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>; 'jbladel(a)godaddy.com' <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>; 'alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Cc: 'Lise Fuhr' <fuhr(a)etno.eu>; 'Robert Hoggarth' <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>; 'Heidi Ullrich' <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>; 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; 'Bart Boswinkel' <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>; 'Steve Sheng' <steve.sheng(a)icann.org>; 'glen.gery(a)icann.org' <glen.gery(a)icann.org>; 'Olof Nordling' <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Subject: Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship Importance: High Dear CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and co-chairs, Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship Final Transition Proposal We write in response to your groups recent publication of the Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (the Final Proposal). We have prepared this in our capacities as co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). Please see our full response attached to this email. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal submitted for approval to the chartering organizations on 11 June 2015 is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the CCWG-Accountability. Specifically, as recognized in the Final Proposal, the CWG-Stewardship Final Transition Proposal sets forth ICANN accountability requirements regarding Community Empowerment Mechanism, IANA Functions Budget, IANA Function Reviews, Customer Standing Committee (CSC), Separation Process, Appeals Mechanism, and Post-Transition IANA (PTI), as well as Fundamental Bylaws. This document is and should be viewed as an element of the agreed-upon working methods of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. Thank you for resolving each of the issues raised in our comment letter relating to your groups publication of its third draft proposal (the Third Draft Proposal) and for all your hard work in reaching consensus. As you know, we rely on your work and our trust in the work of your group is vital in permitting us to focus on the essential aspects of our work on the stewardship transition. In summary, we confirm that the Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal. Congratulations on your Final Proposal and thank-you again all for your collaboration and cooperation throughout this extended period of intense work. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship

1 0

Volume 13: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 26, 2016

Feb. 26, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-13-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions Volume 13: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-13-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-di scussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-13-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-13-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-13-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-13-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-13-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> Transition another step closer as accountability proposal is sent to Chartering Organizations * The final CCWG-Accountability proposal for accountability enhancements that must be in place or committed to within the timeframe of the IANA Stewardship Transition has been sent to its six Chartering Organizations for adoption. * The CWG-Stewardship is finalizing a letter confirming that the CCWG-Accountability proposal meets all of their requirements. * The ICG will finalize their proposal for transmission to the ICANN Board and NTIA upon receiving confirmation from the CWG-Stewardship. CCWG-Accountability proposal On 23 February, the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> ) forwarded <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/ 011410.html> its Final Supplemental Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723827> for the approval of its six Chartering Organizations (GNSO <http://gnso.icann.org/en/> , ALAC <https://atlarge.icann.org/> , ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> , GAC <https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee> , ASO <https://aso.icann.org/> , SSAC <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac> ). The Final Supplemental Proposal incorporates: * Feedback received during the public comment period <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20 15-11-30-en> on the Third Draft Proposal <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016> . * Further development of the recommendations by the CCWG-Accountability members and participants to resolve the sometimes-conflicting issues raised by community feedback. * A change made as a result of concerns expressed by some members of the GAC and by theICANN Board regarding whether or not the GAC could be a member of the Empowered Community when invoking an Independent Review Process triggered by the Board acting on GACadvice. Initially, the Supplemental Proposal recommended not including the GAC as a part of the Empowered Community in such circumstances (on the CCWG-Accountability list, this was termed the ³carve out² of the GAC); the final version removes this constraint. Final approval of CCWG-Accountability¹s Work Stream 1 recommendations triggers the next phase in theIANA Stewardship Transition the transmission of both the transition and accountability proposals to theNTIA by way of the ICANN Board of Directors. The transmission is expected to take place during or immediately following the Public ICANN Board Meeting on 10 March. Timeline 1 March 2016IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <https://www.ianacg.org/> ) teleconference <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-call/> (12:00-13:00 UTC) to discuss finalization of its proposal based on confirmation by CWG-Stewardship that the CCWG-Accountability supplemental report meets all of their requirements. 9 March 2016 Deadline for CCWG-Accountability Chartering Organizations to indicate their support for the Supplemental Draft proposal. Pending approval by all Chartering Organizations, CCWG-Accountability Chairs to forward the proposal to the ICANN Board of Directors. 10 March 2016 CANN Board considers the Supplemental Proposal at its Public Board Meeting <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/thu-board> at ICANN55 <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55> .ICANN Board forwards the Final Supplemental Proposal <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723827> to NTIA, together with the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department¹s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-EN.pdf> . When the NTIA receives the proposals, it will review the contents to ensure that the proposals meet thecriteria published by the NTIA on 14 March 2014 <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transitio n-key-internet-domain-name-functions> . NTIA will also inform U.S. Congress about the status of the proposals. NTIA¹s contract with ICANN expires on 30 September 2016 but NTIA has the authority to extend the contract if needed. IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability discussions at ICANN55 DateTimeSessionRoom 5 Mar 12:45-15:00GNSO: CCWG-Accountability Discussion <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Sessio n+-+Saturday+6+March-+Marrakech> Diamant 14:30-16:00GAC: IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability: Overview <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/sat-gac> Cristal 17:00-18:00GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG Accountability <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/sat-gac> Cristal 6 Mar 08:30-12:30GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG-Accountability <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/sun-gac-morning> Cristal 11:15-11:45GNSO: Update on CWG-Stewardship Implementation <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56985179> Diamant 11:45-13:00GNSO: Update on CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56985179> Diamant 7 Mar 10:15-11:30High-Level Governmental Meeting: IANA Stewardship Transition Outcomes <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-gac-hlgm> Cristal 10:30-11:45IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-imp lementation> Atlas 11:45-13:15High-Level Governmental Meeting: Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governments role in the new ICANN framework <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-gac-hlgm> Cristal 13:30-15:00CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-ccwg-accountability> Atlas 8 Mar 11:00-12:30ccNSO: IANA Stewardship Transition Process <http://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/marrakech55/agenda.htm> Roseraie 12:00-12:30GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG-Accountability <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/tue-gac-morning> Cristal 14:30-15:30GAC: Position as a Chartering Organisation for CCWG-Accountability <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/tue-gac-afternoon> Cristal 16:00-18:00GAC: Finalize GAC Position as a Chartering Organization for CCWG-Accountability <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/tue-gac-afternoon> Cristal 9 Mar 13:30-15:30GNSO Council meeting <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-gnso-council> Toubkal 13:30-18:00ccNSO: IANA Stewardship Transition Process and ccNSO Council Meeting <http://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/marrakech55/agenda.htm> Oliveraie 10 Mar 16:00-17:30ICANN Public Board Meeting <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/thu-board> Atlas Note: The CCWG-Accountability will meet in Marrakech during ICANN55, but at this point, the main focus of the CCWG¹s work in Marrakech is planning Work Stream 2 activities. Work Stream 2 focuses on accountability topics that extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition. IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://www.ianacg.org/> ) has requested confirmation <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-February/004745.html> that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Draft Proposal meets all of the requirements of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ). The CWG-Stewardship held a teleconference <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58721766> on 25 February to discuss its response to the CCWG-Accountability Chartering Organizations and the ICG regarding whether the Supplemental Proposal meets all of the CWG-Stewardship¹s requirements. The draft letter of confirmation is here <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160220/95fec848 /CWGCommentLetter-CCWGFinalProposal-SidleyDraft-213202714-v3-0001.docx> . When the ICG receives confirmation from the CWG-Stewardship, the ICG will finalize the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department¹s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-EN.pdf> for delivery to the ICANN Board to transmit to NTIA. To do this, theICG will hold a teleconference <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58721766> on March 1. IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) A group consisting of representatives from the three IANA operational communities has been finalizing details on how IANA IPR should be managed after the transition has occurred. IANA IPR consists of three IANA trademarks (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA and the IANAlogo) and their registrations as well as three IANA-related domain names (iana.org <http://iana.org/> , iana.net <http://iana.net/> , andiana.com <http://iana.com/> ). These discussions are still underway. To follow recent developments you can follow the mailing list, iana-ipr, which is publicly archived here <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/> . Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson 26 February 2016

1 0

FW: [client com] Work plan and fee estimates
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 25, 2016

Feb. 25, 2016

Forwarding this on behalf of the CWG Chairs per the action from today¹s call. From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 1:11 AM To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Cc: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [client com] Work plan and fee estimates Dear Jonathan, Following up on your request for estimates for the CWG work outlined below, please see below. Please note that these are rough estimates only. These estimates are highly dependent on the extent of back and forth and the number of drafts that are provided for our review which we can¹t predict. 1. Drafting the Letter to CCWG: $20,000 (this includes the substantive review to support the conclusions in the letter). 2. ICANN Bylaws: To date we have $185,000 in fees for this work. The additional fees are highly dependent on the number of iterations that are done on the bylaws. Assuming that are role is limited to implementing one round of the CWG responses to our questions and reviewing one additional turn of the CWG-related bylaws by ICANN legal, we would anticipate an additional $150,000-175,000. 4. Creation of PTI and Drafting of Articles and Bylaws We would estimate this work would be $175,000-200,000. Again this is highly dependent on process and number of iterations. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss. Best regards, Sharon From: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:45 AM To: Client Subject: [client com] Work plan and fee estimates CWG Client Committee Colleagues ICANN is asking for work plans in order to best estimate the ongoing costs associated with the transition project. Since the single largest expenditure is legal fees, there is understandably an enhanced focus on this. Lise and I discussed it and we see the areas of future work as follows: 1. The drafting of a Letter to the CCWG on dependencies. This is work in progress and should be complete in the next week or so. 2. The work to draft ICANN bylaws pertaining to PTI An initial draft was prepared. CWG are in the process of providing input to a series of questions raised. Thereafter, Sidley will take our output and further refine their original draft. Thereafter, we expect to hand the pen to ICANN legal staff for further drafting and integration with other bylaw work. We can expect that we will require of Sidley that they undertake one or more reviews of this work. 3. ICANN legal and operational staff are taking the lead on the Creation and setup of PTI We can expect that we will require of Sidley that they undertake one or more reviews of this work. This seems to be the scope of the work for which ICANN will need to estimate and budget. Before we put this to the CWG, please feel free to provide and comment or supplementary input. Many thanks, Jonathan **************************************************************************** ************************ 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. **************************************************************************** ************************

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #77 - 25 February 2016
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 25, 2016

Feb. 25, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #77 on 25 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/5gWAAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * Action (Chairs): Communicate the cost estimate from Sidley back to the CWG. Also to communicate these estimates to ICANN Finance/Legal. * Action (all): Please review the document and send notes to the CWG-Stewardship list * Action (Chairs): Instruct Sidley of changes requested (Paul's on IANA Budget) and finalize letter for distribution by the end of the week. Distribute to CCWG-Accountability, Chartering Organizations, and ICG. * Action (Grace): Check wording around Final/Final Supplemental to be consistent with CCWG-Accountability term. * Action (Grace): circulate this issues document and updated bylaws matrix to CWG-Stewardship (COMPLETED) * Action (Chairs): send same document to ICANN implementation team in case they have any further edits. (COMPLETED) * Action (DT-O): Continue work and start by identifying objectives. Objective is financial sustainability for IANA. The escrow is only one of the solutions. * Action (Grace): add Paul Kane to DT-O Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Review of the agenda for today's call * Last full CWG call was on 4 February: <https://community.icann.org/x/nJBlAw> https://community.icann.org/x/nJBlAw * Meeting on 9 Feb with Board Finance Committee and Chairs of SO/ACs to discuss budget for Transition-related costs. Chairs have since requested cost estimates for future work from Sidley. * Note from Olivier Crepin-Leblond to indicate that the Chairs should not be held responsible for cost management. * The CCWG-Accountability published their final report for Chartering Organization consideration on Tuesday this week: <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-delivers-report-to-char…> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-delivers-report-to-char… * Aim to send the letter confirming dependencies ASAP to the CCWG, the Chartering Organizations, and the ICG. Action (Chairs): Communicate the cost estimate from Sidley back to the CWG. Also to communicate these estimates to ICANN Finance/Legal. 2. IANA IPR * Next meeting of IANA IPR is 0600 UTC on 29 February. * Document draft link: < <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oR3nmHl1fK7BEWOBK65KyvnmhTJZX70j9q4Ne9i…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oR3nmHl1fK7BEWOBK65KyvnmhTJZX70j9q4Ne9i…>. Action (all): Please review the document and send notes to the CWG-Stewardship list 3. Implementation Update (Presented by Trang Nguyen) Monitoring period & data collection : * RZMS code changes to be deployed on 1 March and on track. Data tracking for all categories requested in the way that SLEs are defined was not possible without certain code changes to RZMS. * NTIA has requested an implementation update in August but this clashes with the planned 6-month collection period. Staff is proposing a 3-month tracking period instead, so as to meet NTIA requirements. One of the items in CSC Charter is that the CSC could recommend changes to SLEs, so that allows the commmunity to come back to SLEs and meet the timeline proposed. * Data collection: Paul Kane notes that shortening the period is acceptable as long as the data collected is meaningful. Paul is happy that the RZMS code change will be completed ahead of time. * Raw data cannot be made available as it contains confidential information for registries. Data scrubbed of the confidential data could be provided following the code changes. PTI: * Name for PTI will be revealed in Marrakech. This "new name" for legal purposes associated with setting up an entity. Implementation session at ICANN55 * Monday 7 March at 10:30 local time in Atlas room for implementation session 4. CCWG-Accountability * Sidley prepared a letter, which Lise forwarded and asked for comments by Tuesday 23 February. * Only Chuck and Paul submitted input. Paul's question was noted by Becky as an item for implementation (Becky leads the IRP Implementation group for the CCWG) * Sidley has prepared a new version of the draft in time for the call (redline on screen) * With regard to IANA Budget, Paul Kane suggests changing "may wish to" to "will" on page 4. This commits the CWG to working on the budget planning process. No objections noted on call. * Lise confirms that Chuck's points were addressed in latest redline. Action (Chairs): Instruct Sidley of changes requested (Paul's on IANA Budget) and finalize letter for distribution by the end of the week. Distribute to CCWG-Accountability, Chartering Organizations, and ICG. Action (Grace): Check wording around Final/Final Supplemental to be consistent with CCWG-Accountability term. 5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG-Stewardship * Plan agreed on last call is to answer Sidley's questions on Bylaws, obtain an updated version, and parse the Bylaws afterward (with ICANN). * For thresholds: Donna Austin suggests we go with current practices, i.e. simple majority, since Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO. Paul Kane agrees. Action (Grace): circulate this issues document and updated bylaws matrix to CWG-Stewardship Action (Chairs): send same document to ICANN implementation team in case they have any further edits. 6. AOB * Next call will be after ICANN 55 (Marrakech) * There are no meetings in Marrakech for the CWG but we will send a list of sessions that may be of interest to group (implementation update, CCWG-Accountability sessions, etc). 7. Closing Remarks * Expect CCWG-Accountability letter to go out on behalf of CWG * Reminder to deal with the IANA 'reserve fund' (3 year portion of reserve fund in IANA operating costs) in implementation. Work is underway in DT-O. Anyone can join DT-O effort. Action (DT-O): Continue work and start by identifying objectives. Objective is financial sustainability for IANA. The escrow is only one of the solutions. Action (Grace): add Paul Kane to DT-O

1 0

FW: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 25, 2016

Feb. 25, 2016

All, Please see attached for discussion at today’s CWG call. Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 25 February 2016 04:26 To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info; 'Client Committee' <cwg-client(a)icann.org>; 'Lise Fuhr' <Fuhr(a)etno.eu> Subject: RE: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal Dear All, Attached is a revised draft letter with the changes below reflected. To facilitate CWG’s review, we have also attached redlines to the February 19 draft and also the final CWG comment letter on the third CCWG proposal. Kind regards, Holly and Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:14 AM To: Flanagan, Sharon; 'Client Committee' Cc: 'Lise Fuhr' Subject: RE: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal Dear Sharon, We had some discussion on list with regard to this letter but as far as producing a revised draft, there is only one suggested change (see below). Any links will need to be checked to ensure they reflect the actual final proposal and related documents as opposed to the draft. The full report is here: https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> . Please could you work the changes suggested below into your draft in order to make a final letter for review and consideration by the CWG at their meeting tomorrow. If you could turn this around today (24 February), that will be most helpful. If you are unclear or require further input or assistance on this matter, please revert to us ASAP. Best wishes, Jonathan -- * 1.b says: “The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (“IFR”) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget;” Because the CWG Stewardship’s focus is specifically on the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like this: “the ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA services”? It seems to me that this would be consistent with item 2. * I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements for each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed. If this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items just like is already done for the conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion. From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 19 February 2016 21:57 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> > Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal Dear All, Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal. As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter. Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice. Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on other grounds. We don’t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss. Kind regards, Holly and Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png> **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************

1 0

Agenda for meeting on 25 February at 16:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 25, 2016

Feb. 25, 2016

Dear all, Here below is the proposed agenda for Thursday. We will follow up with any documents for the meeting. Agenda for 25 February at 16:00 UTC: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Implementation Update 3. CCWG-Accountability 4. IANA IPR 5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG-Stewardship 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks

2 1

Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 25, 2016

Feb. 25, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and observers, I¹m writing to request your expert feedback for the public comment on the draft framework principles for cross community working groups: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-0 2-22-en. I¹ve attached the draft to the email for your convenience. Why you? You are the experts. You are the past, the present, and the future of cross community working groups at ICANN. You have survived one (or both) of the big IANA Stewardship Transition working groups over the past two years, and you probably (I hope!) have a lot to reflect upon and share. What¹s the point? There are no agreed community-wide guidelines on the use of CCWGs, but they are such an awesome form of multistakeholder policymaking that the ICANN community is increasingly reliant on CCWGs for their policy efforts. The CCWG-Principles has taken on the task of developing a uniform framework of principles intended to guide the formation, initiation, operations and closure of future CCWGs. How much time do I have? The public comment period opened on Monday this week. You have 39 days left, until 23 April at 23:59 UTC. You could jot down some thoughts during your long plane rides to/from Marrakech, or even as you observe the action during the sessions! The email to which your comments may be sent is: <comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16(a)icann.org>. If you have any questions, please contact Mary Wong (cc¹ed here). I am passionate about this work because we¹ve innovated and learned so much from the IANA Stewardship Transition working groups, and I have had the privilege and opportunity to work with both groups from their formation. I am keen to see where the outcome of this public comment period takes us next, and I very much hope that you will take pride in designing that path forward. Grace

2 1