February 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Notes, Recordings, Transcript - CWG IANA IRP Informational Meeting- 10 February 2016
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 10, 2016

Feb. 10, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA IRP Informational Meeting that took place on 10 February @ 22:00 UTC will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/fgiAAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Notes IRP Informational Meeting -10 February 2016 @ 22:00 UTC Purpose of the call: discuss the IRP section of the requirements / certification of CCWG-Accoutability work, considering that the CCWG report is in finalization stages. Text from requirements letter (21 December): Section 7, Conclusion: - As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amend. Presentation by Becky Burr, lead author in CCWG-Accountability Questions / Answers: * If service complaints are not resolved through mediation, direct customers can bring an IRP. Should we limit the term? No, since we are looking to the direct customers of PTI. Suggested edit: Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): Para 8 of Annex 7 -- insert "of direct customers" after "ICANN Bylaws will provide that PTI service complaints" * Standard: "material harm" -- CWG proposal was silent on this. Is this ok with CWG? No comments rom CWG. * How does the IRP fit - either within or outside - the proposed escalation process outlined in the CWG propopsal? The IRP does not replace the existing escalation processes, and both processes could happen. * Escalation processes in the CWG proposal come before the IRP. * Is there a different between appealing to PTI or ICANN? In practice, no, since ICANN will have responsibility for performance of PTI. * Does the IRP need to be embedded in the PTI Bylaws? The ICANN-PTI Contract can have a provision for PTI to abide by the IRP. Whether this provision is also in the Bylaws is a question for implememtation. Are the CWG folks satisfied that the requirements are met? Is Sidley satisfied with the rationale provided, so that they can review their requirements letter? CWG aims to sign-off by 18 Feb.

1 0

CWG Co-Chairs Update
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 10, 2016

Feb. 10, 2016

All, An update on three meetings which took place yesterday, all of which were recorded. Also, a comment on the IRP. Transition Facilitation - We are into a very tight time window of opportunity to finalise the IANA Transition proposal - CCWG Accountability expects to publish its Supplementary Proposal to the Chartering Organisations on 18 February 2016 - The Chartering Organisations will want to know whether or not the CWG Stewardship conditions have been met - The ICG is poised to transmit its proposal to the ICANN board and will also wish to know whether or not the CWG Stewardship conditions have been met - Therefore the CWG Stewardship needs to be in a position to certify that our conditions have been met as soon as possible and ideally, at the same time as the Supplementary Proposal is published - We have been doing background work (see below) and are able to continue to do so, focussing particular attention on the IANA Budget & and the Independent Review components of the CWG / CCWG work IANA Budget (as a component of CWG Stewardship / CCWG Accountability proposals) - A call was run yesterday to discuss any lasting concerns with the work on the IANA Budget - Notes and information from that call have been circulated to the CWG Stewardship mailing list - The key question for the CWG is what, if any, outcomes from that do we wish to support? If so, how do we accommodate those? - In dealing with this key question, we need to be mindful of the scope and timescales of the CCWG work as well as the constraints we face in adapting our proposal at this stage - We will co-ordinate with Sidley on this issue IANA Transition Budget - A meeting was held between the ICANN Board, senior staff and the CCWG Accountability / CWG Stewardship Co-chairs - All parties recognise the seriousness of budget overruns given the magnitude that has occurred in this case (relating to the overall IANA Stewardship Transition project) - The focus was on effective cost-control for the remainder of the financial year (to June 2016) and beyond - This is work in progress IRP - A meeting to review the status quo will be held later today (22h00 UTC) We will work with you over the next week with the aim of completing our certification of the CWG dependencies so that the chartering organisations can then go on to review the CCWG Accountability Supplementary Proposal confident in the knowledge that the CWG Stewardship is satisfied. Thank-you, Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr CWG Co-Chairs

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript - CWG IANA Meeting regarding budget work and progress - 9 February 2016
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 9, 2016

Feb. 9, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting regarding budget work and progress that took place on 9 February @ 20:00 UTC will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/QQeAAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Notes Chuck Gomes chairing the call Leon Sanchez on audio only Paul Kane -- concerns with budget is couched in stability issue for PTI (outside of the 'whim' of ICANN Board or management) Can we implement to the satisfaction of Paul's suggestions while maintaining the CWG and CCWG proposals as they are? Martin Boyle outlines three situations: * #1 - ICANN bankruptcy * #2 - PTI goes rogue * #3 - Community vetoes budget --> this is the only situation where the caretaker budget would come into effect Could we build something into the Bylaws to link ICANN's responsibility for funding PTI in the case of #1? Chuck notes that an escrow would not apply in cases of #1 and #2. Most on the call agree that there should be some escrow or reserve funding allocated to PTI operation. Xavier Calvez -- ICANN handles financial stability through a reserve fund. This is an undesignated fund where costs can be allocated where needed. In the post-transition phase, the reserve fund will still be there to cover for ICANN (and PTI within that umbrella). Could a priority be put on the reserve fund for PTI funding? Greg Shatan -- suggestion for a PTI reserve fund that is separate from ICANN's fund How many years of funding would need to be accounted for? Paul suggests 3-5 years (but three would be fine) Jonathan Robinson -- cannot go back to CCWG, we cannot modify CWG proposal. All we can do is give a recommendation that this is tackled at implementation. Will need a recommendation from DT-O to CWG and endorsement from CWG to move forward. Conclusions of the call: * Decided that CWG/DT-O should work on multi-year funding in implementation effort * Agreed that , per the CWG proposal, CWG/DT-O should initiate a process for IANA budget approval in relation to ICANN budget approval (including the issue discussed on this call with regard to multi-year funding) * Suggested that this CWG/DT-O group address the question of inclusion of IANA budgeting processes into the Bylaws Lise Fuhr -- hesitance for what is included in the Bylaws, considering ongoing Bylaws work and need for 'shortening' and 'reorganization' work that needs to be done. Paul wants to have a reference in the Bylaws, but he is willing to let the form of this be addressed by the legal experts who will work on the Bylaws. Xavier notes "We need to be careful that any provision relative to this topic that the group would suggest to design will not have been submitted to public comment, and thus becomes a private working group opinion..."

1 0

IRP Informational call (tomorrow) Wednesday at 22:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 9, 2016

Feb. 9, 2016

Dear CWG, In Jonathan email below, he suggests a call to review the IRP recommendations later this week. However, to keep with the CCWG timeline comments on the IRP text are due Thursday at 02:00 UTC we will host this call on Wednesday at 22:00 UTC (tomorrow). We realize this is short notice, but we have confirmed availability from both Becky Burr, the lead in the CCWG on this issue, and Sharon Flanagan, who will be providing the CWG with an assessment of the requirements. Brenda will be sending the invite shortly. Please refer to me email earlier today for IRP documents: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-February/004704.html Grace From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:06 AM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Cc: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] FW: Client Com notes All, Following on from what was agreed at the most recent CWG meeting of Thursday last week, the CWG Client Committee met yesterday together with representatives from Sidley Austin. Please see below for the key outcomes. The most urgent being the first. Thank-you. Jonathan For and on behalf of the CWG Stewardship Client Committee --- On CCWG Accountability and CWG Dependencies Sidley has been involved in certification of both the previous CCWG-Accountability drafts. We would like to confirm with the CWG that Sidley will conduct a review of the requirements in the final drafting stages, before sign-off by the CWG. To do this, Sharon from Sidley will need to familiarize herself with the latest CWG/CCWG discussions, especially on the budget and IRP compromises. If you do have any significant concerns with this, please let them be known ASAP A schedule / process for dealing with this is proposed as follows: Considering that our next CWG meeting may be too far ahead of the CCWG¹s finalisation schedule, we suggest adjustments to the CWG schedule, Sharon¹s schedule permitting, as follows: - Sharon will join the DT-O call on Tuesday 9 February at 20:00 UTC for an explanation and update on the discussion regarding the budget requirement. If she is unable to join, we will make sure to pass along the recording and transcript. - We will organize a special CWG-Sidley call to explain and discuss how the CCWG is implementing the IRP requirement. This call will take place on Thursday or Friday this week, to be scheduled based on a Doodle poll. On Bylaws Sidley¹s view is that the bulk of the work will be completed once they have reviewed our answers to their questions and integrated these into their draft. They feel strongly that it make sense and will be most cost-effective to keep the document whole and to not slim it down prior to having the full scope and content included. Therefore the next steps proposed are as follows: - The CWG continues work on responses needed for Bylaws matrix - The CWG shares draft responses with Sidley for review only. Sidley will remain in review-mode, and not implement the responses until both sides are satisfied with the detail of the responses provided). - Once responses are final, Sidley embeds the responses into the Bylaws matrix. - The Client Committee will review the Bylaws matrix to ensure that the work is consistent with the CWG¹s responses. - The matrix is then shared with ICANN for an opportunity to review/comment on the CWG-Sidley Bylaws matrix before the next step. - ICANN assists with the organization/structure of the Bylaws in their final form, including assisting with moving parts of the Sidley detail into external reference documents (annexes, etc). This will be done in coordination with the CWG. CWG Meetings Our next call is scheduled for 18 February, but we are likely postpone this call to the following week (25 February). It is important at this stage to focus our efforts on the CCWG dependencies. Please look for a re-scheduling notice from Brenda.

1 0

FW: Client Com notes
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 9, 2016

Feb. 9, 2016

All, Following on from what was agreed at the most recent CWG meeting of Thursday last week, the CWG Client Committee met yesterday together with representatives from Sidley Austin. Please see below for the key outcomes. The most urgent being the first. Thank-you. Jonathan For and on behalf of the CWG Stewardship Client Committee --- On CCWG Accountability and CWG Dependencies Sidley has been involved in certification of both the previous CCWG-Accountability drafts. We would like to confirm with the CWG that Sidley will conduct a review of the requirements in the final drafting stages, before sign-off by the CWG. To do this, Sharon from Sidley will need to familiarize herself with the latest CWG/CCWG discussions, especially on the budget and IRP compromises. If you do have any significant concerns with this, please let them be known ASAP A schedule / process for dealing with this is proposed as follows: Considering that our next CWG meeting may be too far ahead of the CCWG's finalisation schedule, we suggest adjustments to the CWG schedule, Sharon's schedule permitting, as follows: - Sharon will join the DT-O call on Tuesday 9 February at 20:00 UTC for an explanation and update on the discussion regarding the budget requirement. If she is unable to join, we will make sure to pass along the recording and transcript. - We will organize a special CWG-Sidley call to explain and discuss how the CCWG is implementing the IRP requirement. This call will take place on Thursday or Friday this week, to be scheduled based on a Doodle poll. On Bylaws Sidley's view is that the bulk of the work will be completed once they have reviewed our answers to their questions and integrated these into their draft. They feel strongly that it make sense and will be most cost-effective to keep the document whole and to not slim it down prior to having the full scope and content included. Therefore the next steps proposed are as follows: - The CWG continues work on responses needed for Bylaws matrix - The CWG shares draft responses with Sidley for review only. Sidley will remain in review-mode, and not implement the responses until both sides are satisfied with the detail of the responses provided). - Once responses are final, Sidley embeds the responses into the Bylaws matrix. - The Client Committee will review the Bylaws matrix to ensure that the work is consistent with the CWG's responses. - The matrix is then shared with ICANN for an opportunity to review/comment on the CWG-Sidley Bylaws matrix before the next step. - ICANN assists with the organization/structure of the Bylaws in their final form, including assisting with moving parts of the Sidley detail into external reference documents (annexes, etc). This will be done in coordination with the CWG. CWG Meetings Our next call is scheduled for 18 February, but we are likely postpone this call to the following week (25 February). It is important at this stage to focus our efforts on the CCWG dependencies. Please look for a re-scheduling notice from Brenda.

1 0

CCWG - Recommendation 7 - Final draft for CCWG comments
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 9, 2016

Feb. 9, 2016

Dear all, I am forwarding this a bit late, but here is the final reviewed version of the Recommendation 7 text. This includes suggested edits from Chuck and Greg that were forwarded to the CCWG. Please review and submit any comments before 02:00 UTC Thursday 11 February. I will forward information to the CCWG. Best, Grace From: <acct-staff-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 8:53 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: [Acct-Staff] CCWG - Recommendation 7 - Final draft for CCWG comments Per the request of the co-chairs we are publishing the final draft version of Annex 7 for comments by the CCWG. This version is the version produced by legal counsel as distributed this weekend with additional edits approved by the co-chairs and BBurr. These include the comments from C. Gomes of the CWG and the possibility of a review of DIDP requests if against Bylaws (similar to expert panels) as per BBurr request. You will find attached 2 documents, one with track changes (staff and legal) and the other a clean version. The comment period for the CCWG will run from 02:00 UTC Tuesday 9 February and will close at 02:00 UTC Thursday11 February - providing the 48 hour comment period. Please make your comments via email to the full CCWG list and use the following subject line to identify your email as being a comment on this: > CCWG - Recommendation > 7 > - Final draft for CCWG comments > or simply reply to this email. Comments will be compiled in semi-real time by staff . Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG

1 0

CCWG Update
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 9, 2016

Feb. 9, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Today the CCWG-Accountability published its latest version of its recommendations on the IRP. Please see attached for text, and provide any comments you may have. As noted in the email below: * This version has been generated from the conclusion of the third reading document and includes the modification required by the CWG for PTI and has been reviewed by Becky Burr. * As such you will find attached 3 versions, Word and PDF red lined as well as a clean PDF version given the markups are extensive in some sections. * Once this legal review is completed (48 hours - * 20:00 * UTC Saturday), results of the review will be published on this list, a final version will be generated and posted for final CCWG comments. I have highlighted the deadline above since it is important for the CWG to follow this timeline as well. Considering the time pressure that the CCWG is under, we should do our best to not delay them further. If you are able to post on the CCWG list directly, that would be more efficient for them. Otherwise, I will work with the co-Chairs to transfer the information in time. I have also attached two documents that help track the status of the CCWG-Accountability work overall. Best, Grace From: <acct-staff-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: [Acct-Staff] CCWG - Recommendation 7 - Final draft version for legal review All, Per the request of the co-chairs we are publishing the final draft version of Annex 7 for legal review. This version has been generated from the conclusion of the third reading document and includes the modification required by the CWG for PTI and has been reviewed by Becky Burr. As such you will find attached 3 versions, Word and PDF red lined as well as a clean PDF version given the markups are extensive in some sections. Once this legal review is completed (48 hours - 20:00 UTC Saturday), results of the review will be published on this list, a final version will be generated and posted for final CCWG comments. Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG

5 13

FW: CWG IANA Budget Call 9 Feb 16 Background Message
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 8, 2016

Feb. 8, 2016

Since the call is open to anyone in the CWG, I have taken the liberty of forwarding the email below. From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 6:40 PM To: "Paul M Kane (Paul.Kane(a)communitydns.net)" <Paul.Kane(a)communitydns.net>, Paul Kane <paul.kane-cwg(a)icb.co.uk>, "allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca" <allan.macgillivray(a)cira.ca>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>, "'Jonathan Zuck' (jzuck(a)actonline.org)" <jzuck(a)actonline.org>, "'Jonathan Robinson' (jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com)" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>, Lise Fuhr <fuhr(a)etno.eu> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Subject: CWG IANA Budget Call 9 Feb 16 Background Message I hope I have included everyone who has been invited to the CWG IANA Budget Call for 9 February 2016 at 20:00 UTC. I suspect I have included some who were not invited; if so, please ignore the following. The call is organized so that the main drafters in the CWG (Chuck) and CCWG (Jordan/Jonathan) can provide an update to the CWG members about the compromise on the IANA budget recommendation. Provided below is the background and objectives of the CWG IANA Budget Call scheduled for 9 February 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Background On 4 February Paul Kane sent a message to Lise Fuhr that contained the following concerns about the CCWG Accountability third proposal with regard to the IANA budget: · ³The goal must always be stable operation of the independent (affiliate) PTI company so the part that is _missing_ now is: the need to ring-fence say 3 or 5 years worth of operating budget in an escrow style account. · ³There may be an attempt to push that to implementation phase but being in the Bylaws is more appropriate as it is a legal obligation to support PTI. · ³The PTI staff need to know/be assured they are outside the financial manipulation of the ICANN Board and have the resources to undertake their role for 3/5 years .... also if there is to be a change of operator they need to have the funds to facilitate the change and also for the new operator to know that initial funding is available.² Here is my interpretation of the changes to the CCWG proposal that Paul thinks are missing: 1. Putting aside an amount of money for funding PTI for 3 to 5 years 2. Adding to the Bylaws a requirement to guarantee 3 to 5 years of PTI funding 3. Including in the IANA budget funds to transition the IANA functions from PTI to a new operator if needed. Design Team O (IANA Budget) discussed the possibility of ideas like creating an escrow account to cover multiyear funding of IANA but did not specifically recommend that. Paul Please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect in any way. In the CCWG 3rd proposal, the IANA budget is discussed in paragraphs 15 to 22; here are the elements of the CCWG 3rd proposal that I think are particularly pertinent to Paul¹s concerns: a. ³Should the power be used to reject the annual IANA Functions Budget, a caretaker budget would be enacted implemented (details regarding the caretaker budget are currently under development as noted above for the ICANN Budget). The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that the caretaker budget approach be embedded in the Fundamental Bylaws, including the responsibility of the CFO to establish the caretaker budget in accordance with the defined approach.² (unnumbered paragraph after paragraph 19) b. ³The CCWG-Accountability acknowledges that the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group) is required to develop a proposed process for the IANA Functions Operations-specific budget establishment and review. This process will be a key input for the implementation of this specific power.² (paragraph 20) c. ³The CWG-Stewardship may wish to detail the planning process by which the IANA Budget is established as part of its implementation programme of work, including the level of detail required to be provided for community input and the timeframes for consultations and approvals. The CCWG-Accountability limits its requirements to those set out in this Recommendation.² (paragraph 21) d. ³. . . The process must also be implemented in such a way as to ensure the stable and continuous delivery of the IANA Functions, and that ensures the proper delivery of contractual service levels to the respective operational communities.² (paragraph 22) Chuck¹s Analysis In my opinion, the CCWG proposal ensures stable operation of the IANA functions in these ways: Developing a process for establishment & review of the IANA Functions Operations-specific budget (paragraph b above) and development of an IANA caretaker budget that would be implemented if the IANA budget is rejected (paragraphs a & c above). I think this is in lieu of ring-fencing IANA funding for 3-5 years as Paul suggests. To address Paul¹s item 2 above, should these be included in the bylaws? Question for Paul: is the development of an IANA operations budget combined with the development and implementation of an IANA caretaker budget sufficient to address your concern for stable funding of IANA services? If not, I believe a change would have to be made to the CWG Stewardship requirement, which I think would require full CWG Stewardship approval. To my knowledge, the CWG Stewardship has never decided to ³detail the planning process by which the IANA Budget is established as part of its implementation programme of work, including the level of detail required to be provided for community input and the timeframes for consultations and approvals² (see item c above). I don¹t believe there is anything in the CWG Stewardship proposal or in the CCWG proposal that requires that the IANA budget include funds to transition the IANA functions from PTI to a new operator if needed. Is this a requirement that we should add? Call Objectives Decide whether: A. The requirement for the development of an IANA operations budget combined with the development and implementation of an IANA caretaker budget sufficient to ensure stability of IANA services funding or should we add to the CWG requirements that B. The CWG Stewardship should ³detail the planning process by which the IANA Budget is established as part of its implementation programme of work, including the level of detail required to be provided for community input and the timeframes for consultations and approvals² (see item c above). C. Requirements of the IANA budget and IANA caretaker budget development processes should be in the Bylaws. References i. Email summarizing the outcome of the budget agreements between the two groups: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/00 9976.html i. Annex 04 Details on Recommendation #4: Ensuring Community Involvement in ICANN Decision-making: Seven New Community Powers from the CCWG 3rd draft proposal (attached) This contains the paragraphs referred to above.

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update
by Burr, Becky Feb. 5, 2016

Feb. 5, 2016

I’m good with that change. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:40 AM To: "grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>" <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update In the 2nd Reading Conclusions, item 1.a.iii.1 says: “ICANN should consider modification of Registry Agreements with gTLD Operators to expand scope of arbitration available thereunder to cover PTI service complaints.” It seems to me that the wording should be stronger: “ICANN must modify Registry Agreements with gTLD Operators to expand scope of arbitration available thereunder to cover PTI service complaints.” I think the same change should be made later in the document when this sentence occurs again. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:18 PM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update Dear CWG-Stewardship, Today the CCWG-Accountability published its latest version of its recommendations on the IRP. Please see attached for text, and provide any comments you may have. As noted in the email below: * This version has been generated from the conclusion of the third reading document and includes the modification required by the CWG for PTI and has been reviewed by Becky Burr. * As such you will find attached 3 versions, Word and PDF red lined as well as a clean PDF version given the markups are extensive in some sections. * Once this legal review is completed (48 hours - 20:00 UTC Saturday), results of the review will be published on this list, a final version will be generated and posted for final CCWG comments. I have highlighted the deadline above since it is important for the CWG to follow this timeline as well. Considering the time pressure that the CCWG is under, we should do our best to not delay them further. If you are able to post on the CCWG list directly, that would be more efficient for them. Otherwise, I will work with the co-Chairs to transfer the information in time. I have also attached two documents that help track the status of the CCWG-Accountability work overall. Best, Grace From: <acct-staff-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [Acct-Staff] CCWG - Recommendation 7 - Final draft version for legal review All, Per the request of the co-chairs we are publishing the final draft version of Annex 7 for legal review. This version has been generated from the conclusion of the third reading document and includes the modification required by the CWG for PTI and has been reviewed by Becky Burr. As such you will find attached 3 versions, Word and PDF red lined as well as a clean PDF version given the markups are extensive in some sections. Once this legal review is completed (48 hours - 20:00 UTC Saturday), results of the review will be published on this list, a final version will be generated and posted for final CCWG comments. Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #76 - 4 February 2016
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 4, 2016

Feb. 4, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #76 on 4 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/nJBlAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * Action (Trang): ICANN to share Viagenie's work with the SLE Team, and if requested, schedule a call to provide any clarification and answer any questions. SLE Team to report back to CWG following the call. * Action (staff): set up a call ASAP for the CWG Chairs, DT-O, Paul Kane, Allan MacGillivray, and anyone else who has questions to discuss the budget work and progress. * Action (Client Com): hold meeting to discuss process and costs related to Bylaws work Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Key objective: deal with CWG responses on Bylaws drafting * Transition costs related to CWG and CCWG will be discussed under item #4 * Agenda switch: Item #3 (IANA IPR) will move to item #2 since Greg is only available for the first hour. 2. IANA IPR (update from Greg Shatan) * Meeting with the CRISP and IETF groups, adopted the IETF principles as goal in development of terms for the Trust. * Comments from the cross-operational team due in a few days. There will be a draft shared with the CWG afterward. * Group has a publicly archived list: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/. 3. Implementation Update (update from Trang Nguyen) * Marc Blanchet will present his work on data parsing today * Presentations will be posted on Wiki implementation page: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Implementation> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Implementation * How does the CWG work with ICANN on elements such as the CSC Charter and Bylaws? Implementation team is aware of the CWG response document, but has not had a chance to review it closely. May be something to address later in the call (under item #5) * Are there any implications of the CCWG delay on the RZMA? Not necessarily for RZMA, but there may be an effect on the incorporation of PTI. (presentation from Marc Blanchet on SLE Data Parsing) * The scope of project was to see if the 11 metrics requested by the SLE team could be measured/applied to the RZMS/RT. * Viagenie conducted random sampling of the tickets as part of analysis. Limited tickets to Jan 1 2012 through Nov 30 2015 to avoid unstable tickets (RZMS was put into production in April 2011). * One limitation to note: the current system does not distinguish between ccTLDs and gTLDs. * The SLE team identified 5 categories that are not in the current system. For the study, Viagenie used 2-3 groups resembling categories to provide better statistics. * Was this work conducted in cooperation with the SLE Team? The team that worked on the study is from Viagenie (contractors). * Will a lot of coding be required to provide analysis on the metrics? Are some requests not achievable? In some cases yes, and this is why ICANN has been working on code-changes for the RZMS so that data can be collected on the 11 metrics that are requested. * Concerns around providing the raw data and this may not be possible (confidential data). Instead, ICANN brought in a contractor to conduct the analysis. * Can the data be anonymized? If the data is anonymized, then it is not raw data. The request was for raw data. Action (Trang): ICANN to share Viagenie's work with the SLE Team, and if requested, schedule a call to provide any clarification and answer any questions. SLE Team to report back to CWG following the call. 4. CCWG-Accountability * Chairs had coordination call yesterday and it is clear that the CCWG-Accountability is working through tough issues and tight deadlines * Work in the past two weeks has focused on IRP process and the budget. The final wording is still not available, but will be circulated to the CWG as documents become available. * All CCWG documents are posted here: <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report * Paul Kane has some concerns. Perhaps we need a call to explain? * Board Finance Committee has expressed concerns about the costs of the transition departing from the budgeted cost. Legal fees are a large part of the high costs * ICG intends to seek confirmation from CWG that the requirements have been met. This is expected around the time that the CCWG report goes to Chartering Organizations. A speedy reply would be helpful. Action (staff): set up a call ASAP for the CWG Chairs, DT-O, Paul Kane, Allan MacGillivray, and anyone else who has questions to discuss the budget work and progress. 5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG-Stewardship * Sidley produced a draft on 7 November. The CWG noted that there were many questions to be answered and that the Bylaws many need to be shortened. * DT-leads have populated a table with some responses, but there needs to be further work on resolving the responses. * ICANN legal could make a first draft of the Bylaws, to be reviewed by Sidley. The Client Committee could discuss this further, especially with regard to recent cost information from Board. * In July, the Client Committee received an estimate to produce a Bylaws Matrix ( <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000266.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000266.html) This includes the work produced on 7 November. The CWG does not have an estimate for the Bylaws drafting as a whole. * Martin Boyle suggests that CWG should be careful about what is "locked down" in Bylaws. In some cases, where change/evolution is envisioned, then it may be best to not include these elements in the Bylaws. * The next iteration of the Bylaws needs to be smaller in size and make reference to external documents. * What does "TBD" mean? Staff had flagged these as items for further work in implementation phase Current Plan: * Provide best possible answers in documents * To instruct Sidley to produce a slimmed down version based on responses * Before instructing Sidley, have a discussion with them about time and costs * Coordinate with ICANN implementation Next Steps: * Review and update the documents * Discuss with Sidley Action (Client Com): hold meeting to discuss process and costs related to Bylaws work 6. AOB Next meeting on 18 February 7. Closing Remarks Thanks all!

1 0