April 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Final responses provided to Bylaws Coordination Group
by Grace Abuhamad April 14, 2016

April 14, 2016

Dear all, The attached document was provided by the Chairs to the Bylaws Coordination Group as the responses from the CWG-Stewardship. The Chairs reviewed the document with me this morning and instructed me on next steps. DT-O met yesterday from 20:00 to 22:00 UTC. On the call they discussed a few bylaws issues related to the budget and provided their feedback to the Chairs via the attached letter. The information and recommendations from DT-O were incorporated in the document shared with Bylaws Coordination Group. There is one exception to this as follows: DT-O discussed an edit to the Caretaker Budget Principle 1.f. An action item was assigned to Xavier Calvez to provide revised text for this principle. At the time the Chairs reviewed the document, this text had not yet been provided by Xavier. Chuck, as the DT-O lead, has made an attempt to edit the language in 1.f. (as seen in the attached letter), but the Chairs preferred to leave a placeholder in the response until confirmation from Xavier. We will update the Bylaws Coordination Group once that update is available. Best, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:16 AM To: Mathieu Weill via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord(a)icann.org> Cc: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] Responses to the Bylaws Coordination Group Dear all, On behalf of the CWG-Stewardship Chairs, I am sharing the attached document which includes the CWG-Stewardship’s responses to the questions posed by the Bylaws Coordination Group on 2 April 2016. In addition to the responses, the document includes comments / requests for clarification from the CWG-Stewardship or its individual members. In most cases, the CWG-Stewardship’s comments / requests for clarification have already been provided to, or discussed with, Sharon Flanagan (Sidley) who is the lead external counsel working with the CWG-Stewardship. Since the CWG-Stewardship’s last meeting on 11 April, Sharon has provided a revised draft of the CWG-Stewardship related Bylaws, two requests for further clarification, and responses to an individual’s set of comments. The CWG-Stewardship acknowledges receipt of these materials, and appreciates the quick turnaround and responsiveness that Sharon and the legal teams have been able to provide. To be clear, in the event that there is a conflict between any of the materials provided this week and this final response document (attached), this final document supersedes those materials. Thank you, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE.

2 3

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-O Meeting on 13 April 2016
by Brenda Brewer April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 13 April 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/YTqAAw A copy of the notes and action item may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda [---] Action Items * Action (all): Group to review notes and Xavier's proposed language for submission to the Bylaws Coordination Group by 23:59 UTC today. * Action (Xavier): Xavier will send a redrafted version to the mailing list. * Action (all): respond to doodle poll with availability for next meeting(s). Notes 1. Roll Call All in Adobe Connect room. 2. Confirm agenda Items #3 and #4 are important and need to be closed today. Xavier will join 30 min into the call. 3. Discuss Section 22.4 (b) - (g) in the proposed revised Bylaws * Refer to email message sent by Chuck on Monday, 11 April * Note that we need to provide feedback on this section to the full CWG today. * There will be separate budgets for ICANN and for IANA. * Suggestion to fix the term "ICANN's IANA department" to confirm the intention that the ICANN and IANA budgets will separate. The term was inserted into the CWG-Stewardship proposal to ensure coverage across the board (without full information about how the budgeting processes would work), but the implementation planning has now clarified how the budgeting process will evolve. * DT-O agrees that IANA needs to have finished its budget planning in advance of the ICANN budget comment period. The "9 months" terminology is in the CWG proposal, but DT-O agrees that 9 months is too much. To modify the Bylaw text, the intention is that the IANA budget would be submitted for PTI Board approval prior to the submission of the ICANN Budget for ICANN Board approval but no later than [75 days (time is not fixed, it just need to be more than 45 days)] prior to the commencement of each fiscal year. * Xavier has some language for a re-written Bylaw that he will send to the group. DT-O is satisfied with Xavier's text and would prefer to use that text for the Bylaws. * Flag for the Bylaws Drafting team: the use of the term "PTI" may change in future, so this needs to be considered for the drafting ofthe Bylaws. * Proposed text from Xavier (Elise is ok with the text as well): Separately and addition to the general ICANN planning process, PTI shall prepare and submit to the PTI Board a proposed operating plan and budget for the IANA functions for the upcoming planning cycle. Such proposed operating plan and budget shall provide appropriate information to enable a consultation process allowing for broad community engagement and input, including appropriate steps for addressing such community input. The proposed operating plan and budget for the IANA functions, resulting from such process, shall be submitted to ICANN as input prior to and for the purpose of being included in the proposed ICANN operating plan and budget, itself then subject to a broad consultation process, including appropriate steps for addressing community input. Action (all): Group to review notes and Xavier's proposed language for submission to the Bylaws Coordination Group by 23:59 UTC today. 4. Discuss Annex F, IANA Caretaker Budget Principles, on pages 211-213 (overall pages 214-217) of the redline version of the Bylaws * Refer to email message sent by Chuck on Tuesday, 12 April * Note Chuck's personal comments sent to the full CWG regarding paragraph 1.f of Annex F. * We are trying to prevent ICANN from implementating actions that are controversial. Action (Xavier): Xavier will send a redrafted version to the mailing list. 5. Discuss PTI Budget Dependencies -Draft ICANN Bylaws * See message forwarded by Chuck from Sharon Flanagan on 12 April. * We need to provide feedback on this to the full CWG today. * #6 and #7 are resolved by agenda items #3 and #4 for DT-O call and Xavier's language. * For item #3: this requirement for the level of detail is a carry-over from prior work on the ICANN budget. This does not need to be specified in the Bylaws. See Xavier's proposed language. * Item #4 is also covered by the text in Xavier's language. 6. Possible DT-O or CWG comments on the Draft FY17 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget * Discuss the response from Xavier regarding clarification comments in the draft sent by Chuck (sent by Xavier on 12 April) * Next steps 7. AOB 8. Next meeting(s) Action (all): respond to doodle poll with availability for next meeting(s).

1 0

Additional Bylaws Issues
by Gomes, Chuck April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

Attached and pasted below are some additional issues that I want to communicate regarding the ICANN Bylaws. Sorry for sending these so late but I just finished my review of the redline Bylaws document. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need additional information from me. I will plan on communicating any relevant input from DT-O from the meeting planned for tomorrow as soon as possible after that meeting. Chuck ICANN Bylaws input from Chuck Gomes 12 April 2016 In my personal review of the Bylaws I noted the following issues that I don't think were covered in the CWG Bylaws Review meeting today: · There are several acronyms or terms that are used before they are defined: o 'EC' - I think the first time it is used is on page 6 of the redline version (page 9 overall). o 'Decisional Participant' - I think the first time it is used is on page 33 of the redline version (page 36 overall). o 'IFRT' - I think the first time it is used is on page 90 of the redline version (page 93 overall). · Unless I missed it somewhere, as far as I can tell the 'Decisional Participants' are not named anywhere in the Bylaws even though they are referenced dozens of times. · Section 8.2 on page 54 of the redlined version (page 56 overall) says that one member of the NomCom will be selected by the NCUC. o I have no problem with that but I do wonder if it should say NCSG instead of NCUC. o I am pretty sure that the original version of this language was before there was a NCSG and before the NPOC existed. · Section 16.2(a) on page 86 of the redline version (page 89 overall) says: "ICANN, in its capacity as the sole Member of PTI, shall elect the directors of PTI in accordance with the articles of incorporation and bylaws of PTI and . . ." o It is my understanding that ICANN shall elect three of the five directors, not all five. o Shouldn't this be corrected? · Section 18.7(c) on page 97 of the redline version (page 100 overall) says that the IFRT will contain two (2) representatives from the RySG. o Note that it also says that there will be three ccTLD members (two from the ccNSO and one not from the ccNSO). o Note also that Section 19.5(iii) says that the SCWG will have three (3) RySG representatives, the same number as for ccTLDs, two from the ccNSO and one not from the ccNSO. o Was this just an inadvertent oversight? o It seems to me that the IFRT should have three (3) representatives from the RySG. · Section 22.4(b), IANA Budget, says: "At least 45 days prior to the commencement of each fiscal year, ICANN shall prepare and submit to the Board a proposed annual budget of ICANN for direct costs for ICANN's IANA department, all costs for PTI, direct costs for shared resources between ICANN and PTI and support functions provided by ICANN to PTI and ICANN's IANA department for the next fiscal year (the "IANA Budget"), which shall be posted on the Website." o The recommendation of DT-O regarding the IANA Budget was that it be approved prior to approval of the ICANN Budget. o DT-O's recommendation was made prior to any knowledge that a change to the Bylaws would be proposed to require submission of an ICANN Budget to the Board 45 days prior to the start of the applicable fiscal year. o I support the requirement for submission of an ICANN Budget to the Board 45 days prior to the start of the applicable fiscal year but believe that there are advantages to the IANA Budget being approved earlier than the ICANN Budget; having the IANA Budget approved prior to consideration of the final ICANN Budget will: § Remove any dependency of IANA services funding from approval or veto of the ICANN Budget § Allow more time for resolution of a veto of the IANA Budget § Provide increased confidence that IANA services will continue without interruption. o My personal recommendation would be that the IANA budget be submitted for Board approval with sufficient time to be approved prior to submission of the ICANN Budget for Board approval. o Note that DT-O plans to discuss this issue in its meeting on 13 April 2016. · Paragraph (e) in Section 3.2 (SO/AC Director removal process) on page 187 of the redline version (overall page 190) requires "a three-quarters majority of an applicable Decisional Participant as determined pursuant to the internal procedures of the Applicable Decisional Participant for the SO/AC Director Removal Petition. o If the GNSO is the applicable Decisional Participant, the GNSO does not presently define what a 'three-quarters majority' is. o Presumably, following current threshold definitions for the GNSO Council, a three-quarters majority would be defined as a three-quarters majority of each house. o Is the addition of this definition considered to be an implementation action item for the GNSO? · Paragraph 1.f in Annex E, The ICANN Caretaker Budget, on page 208 of the redline version (overall page 211) says: "Notwithstanding any other principle listed above, prevents ICANN from initiating activities that are subject to community consideration (or for which that community consideration has not concluded), including without limitation, preventing implementation of the expenditures or undertaking the actions that were the subject of the ICANN Budget that was rejected by the EC and that triggered the need for the Caretaker ICANN Budget." o This clause seems appropriate in a case where the EC rejects the budget because it does not support funding certain actions or thinks that too many funds are allocated to those actions. o But what about a situation in which the EC rejects the budget because it believes that insufficient funds are budgeted for certain actions? In a case like that, it might not be necessary to prevent funding of the actions while the dispute is resolved; in other words, it might be fine if the actions proceeded at the reduced funding level until a decision is made on increased funding, especially if taking the actions at the reduced funding level would not negatively impact the actions if increased funding was provided later. o I wonder whether this clause should be reworded to accommodate such situations; if so, then a change may also need to be made in section 2.b.v, Examples of expenditures that would be excluded from a Caretaker Budget: "the proposed expenditure that was the basis for the rejection by the EC that triggered the need for the Caretaker ICANN Budget." · Paragraph 1.f in Annex F, IANA Caretaker Budget Principles, on page 211 of the redline version (overall page 214) says: "Notwithstanding any other principle listed above, prevents ICANN, in its responsibility to fund the operations of the IANA functions, from initiating activities that are subject to community consideration (or for which that community consultation has not concluded), including without limitation, preventing implementation of the expenditures or undertaking the actions that were the subject of the IANA Budget that was rejected by the EC and triggered the need for the Caretaker IANA Budget." o This clause seems appropriate in a case where the EC rejects the budget because it does not support funding certain actions or thinks that too many funds are allocated to those actions. o But what about a situation in which the EC rejects the budget because it believes that insufficient funds are budgeted for certain actions? In a case like that, it might not be necessary to prevent funding of the actions while the dispute is resolved; in other words, it might be fine if the actions proceeded at the reduced funding level until a decision is made on increased funding, especially if taking the actions at the reduced funding level would not negatively impact the actions if increased funding was provided later. o I wonder whether this clause should be reworded to accommodate such situations; if so, then a change may also need to be made in section 2.b.v, Examples of expenditures that would be excluded from a Caretaker Budget: "the proposed expenditure that was the basis for the rejection by the EC that triggered the need for the Caretaker ICANN Budget." (Note that a minor edit is needed: it should say Caretaker IANA Budget, not Caretaker ICANN Budget.) o Note that DT-O plans to discuss this issue in its meeting on 13 April 2016. · Note that a glossary of acronyms and key terms would be a very useful aid for community members.

4 5

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016
by Seun Ojedeji April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

Thanks for your response, kindly find just a minor clarification on a point below, perhaps it helps clarify my question: On 13 Apr 2016 6:36 a.m., "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: > >> As per the proposal, Registries substantially determine the composition of the CSC. IMO, the purpose of Liaison is to provide others in the GNSO with opportunity to monitor and interact with CSC. SO: This is well understood, even though I had issues with it I swallowed it up a long time again ;-) > Liaison therefore to come from GNSO but not from Registries (i.e. NCPH or RrSG) >> SO: This is where I have minor issue on the use of the word "or". Quoting from the bylaw draft section 17.2c "Each of the following organizations may also appoint one liaison to the CSC in accordance with the rules and procedures of the appointing organization:.......either the NRO or ASO (as determined by the ASO),..." The statement above makes it clear that 1 representative is expected and can be selected from either NRO or ASO (bear in mind that NRO != ASO) and it further states who has the appointment authority. The same "or" was used in the case of RySg and NCPH but I don't think the intent is to achieve the same purpose of the ASO in that I think 1 from either sides is allowed hence the "or" should rather be "and". That said, if "or" is indeed the intent then the authority source for the 1 nominee needs to be specified. Regards >> Secondly, what's the use of a liaison since the DUO are components of the GNSO. I have not gone to the proposal to check if this is inline but it seem like an overkill to me. >> >> > · Question 10: no change. >> > >> > · Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws. >> > >> > · Question 12: no change. >> > >> > · Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'. >> > >> SO: sounds more broadly inclusive and clear than the alternative. >> >> Agreed >> >> Or an >> > alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the >> > IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large". >> > >> > Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship >> > proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles. >> > >> >> SO: Is this referring to the current CCWG framework open for PC or principles that will be set in the charter of each CCWG? If the former then fine(although I would note that having such mindset early would have been a good thing), however if it's the later I guess the high-level principles of the SCWG is indeed what we are discussing and I don't think it's something to be determined later. >> >> CWG proposal (para. 391, p. 91) says: >> >> “The SCWG will follow the overall guidelines and procedures for ICANN Cross Community Working Groups.” >> >> I read this to be such guidelines (for CWGs) that are in place or developed from time to time. Therefore I read this to be the (outcome) of the former i.e. the CCWG-Principles has draft guidelines currently out for public comment. >> >> Regards >> >> > · Question 24: no change >> > >> > · Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify. >> > >> > · Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs. >> > >> > Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a. >> > >> > 2. AOB >> > >> > Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items >> > may be able to be provided via email. >> > >> > Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >

2 3

FW: [client com] IFRT Reports and Permitted Redactions
by Jonathan Robinson April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

All, Please can you (especially Avri & Matthew) pay attention to the request below from Sharon. Thank-you. Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 12 April 2016 02:28 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] IFRT Reports and Permitted Redactions Dear All, The current draft ICANN bylaws (Section 18.4(a)) includes below relating to the reports that PTI will deliver to the IFRT: Reports provided by PTI pursuant to the IANA Naming Function Contract and/or IANA Naming Function SOW during the IFR period being reviewed, any portion of which may be redacted (i) that reflects privileged advice from legal counsel; (ii) includes PTI or ICANN trade secrets; (iii) where disclosure to the IFRT would otherwise constitute a breach by PTI or ICANN of a binding contractual obligation or legal requirement to which PTI or ICANN is subject; or (iv) if disclosed would present a material risk of negative impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS; The comment noted in the CWG response circulated on 9 April 2016 was as follows: Has the same redaction problem we find in other reviews. This should be treated in the same way as confidential information is treated in ATRT, i.e. signature of NDA (ref Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams 4.6.a.vi). May need to refer to EC right of inspection as appeal mechanism if NDA is not a possible solution. For reference Section 4.6(a)(vi) provides as follows: (i) Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: (A) To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN’s deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents pursuant to the Confidential Disclosure Framework set forth in the Operating Standards. The Confidential Disclosure Framework must be aligned with the following guidelines: (1) ICANN must provide a justification for any refusal to reveal requested information. ICANN’s refusal can be appealed to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. (2) ICANN may designate certain documents and information as “for review team members only” or for a subset of the review team members based on conflict of interest. ICANN’s designation of documents may also be appealed to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board. ICANN may require review team members to sign a non-disclosure agreement before accessing documents. Can CWG please clarify what process is being requested for redactions on reports provided to PTI? Is the suggestion that 4.6(a)(vi) above replace what is currently in 18.4(a))? If so, we understand that the Confidential Disclosure Framework may not be final yet. Has CWG seen drafts and is it comfortable with this process? Please let us know so that we can mark-up the ICANN draft bylaws accordingly. This is a point on which the CWG proposal is silent so there isn’t guidance contained within the proposal. Best regards, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> <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. ****************************************************************************************************

5 4

FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments
by Jonathan Robinson April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

All, Please review below and provide any relevant input as soon as possible. Thanks, Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 12 April 2016 02:33 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments Dear All, There is an open question in the ICANN draft bylaws relating to IFRT-recommended amendments to the IANA Naming Function Contract, SOW and the CSC Charter (Section 18.6(a)(i)). ICANN had requested a consultation right on amendments to the Contract and SOW since it is a party to the Contract. On the CWG call, there was a comment on whether the consultation right for the ICANN board was appropriate. The CWG proposal does not contemplate an ICANN consultation right. Paragraph 272 of the CWG proposal states: 272 The review could identify recommended amendments to the IANA SOW to address any performance deficiencies, or to the CSC charter to address any issues or deficiencies. The process of developing and approving amendments will take place through a defined process that includes, at minimum, the following steps, in advance of an amendment to either document being proposed: › Consultation with the IANA Functions Operator; › Consultation with the CSC; › Public input session for ccTLD and gTLD operators; and › Public comment period. Best regards, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> <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. ****************************************************************************************************

8 10

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016
by Seun Ojedeji April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 11 Apr 2016 6:39 p.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > · Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is > that this not be from a gTLD registry. > SO: That there is still a "or" between NCSG and RrSG makes me wonder what this mean in practice; that NCSG will not appoint if RrSG appointed a liaison first or the other way round? Secondly, what's the use of a liaison since the DUO are components of the GNSO. I have not gone to the proposal to check if this is inline but it seem like an overkill to me. > · Question 10: no change. > > · Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws. > > · Question 12: no change. > > · Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'. > SO: sounds more broadly inclusive and clear than the alternative. Or an > alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the > IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large". > > Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship > proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles. > SO: Is this referring to the current CCWG framework open for PC or principles that will be set in the charter of each CCWG? If the former then fine(although I would note that having such mindset early would have been a good thing), however if it's the later I guess the high-level principles of the SCWG is indeed what we are discussing and I don't think it's something to be determined later. Regards > · Question 24: no change > > · Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify. > > · Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs. > > Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a. > > 2. AOB > > Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items > may be able to be provided via email. > > Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

3 3

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016
by Brenda Brewer April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting on 11 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/RieAAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a. Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps. Notes 1. Review of CWG-Stewardship responses on Bylaws (lead by DT leads for each section) * Question 8: response approved with "direct customers" * Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry. * Question 10: no change. * Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws. * Question 12: no change. * Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'. Or an alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large". * Question 14: no change. * Question 15: no change. * Question 16: Suggest going back to original CWG proposal language ("reasonable consultation with SOs and ACs") * Question 17: clarification on the definition of performance. * Question 18: no change * Question 19: no change * Question 20: Suggestion for "as many individuals be appointed as possible". Agreement no to specify any numbers. * Question 21: no change * Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles. * Question 24: no change * Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify. * Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs. Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a. 2. AOB Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items may be able to be provided via email. Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.

4 3

Implementation Blog: Building an Enhanced, Community Empowered ICANN
by Grace Abuhamad April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-an-enhanced-community-empowered-ic… Building an Enhanced, Community Empowered ICANN The submission of the IANA Stewardship Transition Package to the U.S. Government last month marked the end of an impressive proposal development effort by the global multistakeholder community. It also marked the beginning of the next, intense period of work, to ensure that the proposals can be implemented in a timely manner if they’re accepted. We’ve seen significant progress since the submission, with a great deal of focus for ICANN and the community on updating ICANN’s Bylaws. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has said they need to see adoption of any changes to ICANN’s Bylaws before they can complete their anticipated 90-day review. To meet this aggressive timeline, immediately following the ICANN55 meeting in Marrakech, a drafting team was formed consisting of ICANN’s legal team and the two external law firms involved with the Community Working Group (CWG-Stewardship) and Cross Community Working Group (CCWG-Accountability). The drafting team is working closely with representatives of all the involved community groups and theICANN Board to ensure that the updated Bylaws accurately reflect the recommendations in the IANAStewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the CCWG-Accountability proposals. Consistent with the current timeline, we will post the new draft Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period on 20 April 2016, with tentative adoption by 27 May. The Bylaws will only become effective upon the successful completion of the transition. We are also continuing our joint planning efforts to remove NTIA’s administrative role from the root zone management system (outlined in my recent blog update), and as announced last week, ICANN and Verisign are currently undertaking a 90-day “parallel testing” period of the Root Zone Management System (RZMS). The parallel testing period is part of the proposal that ICANN and Verisign submitted toNTIA in August 2015. Additionally, we hope to complete two other critical agreements this month – the Service Level Agreement with the five Regional Internet Registries (RIR) and the Memorandum of Understanding Supplemental Agreement with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). We will make the drafts of these agreements available for a 30-day public review period prior to ICANN Board consideration. To keep everyone informed on all these strands of planning, we will start publishing weekly updates on icann.org beginning next week. I encourage anyone who’s interested in the transition’s implementation details to check back for those updates. There are 25 weeks left until the end of the current term of the IANA Functions contract with NTIA. We clearly have a lot of work to do as an organization and a community to be fully prepared, but the end goal of an enhanced, community empowered, independent ICANN, is well within sight.

1 0

Canceling the call on Thursday 14 April
by Grace Abuhamad April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Dear all, Since we had a call on Monday this week, we will cancel the call on Thursday 14 April. We will plan on a call for Thursday 21 April at 16:00 UTC. Please look for invitations from Brenda to appear shortly. Best, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE.

1 0