- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Questions from the ICG - batch 1
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Dear CWG, Based on comments received during the ICG’s public comment period, the ICG has a number of questions for the CWG. We are sending these questions in more than one batch. The first batch below has agreement from the ICG so we are sending them now; we are aiming to send another batch before the end of the week. We are requesting responses to these questions ideally by 7 October at 23:59 UTC (prior to the ICG’s final call before ICANN 54 on October 8), or by 14 October at 23:59 UTC if the CWG requires more time. We realize this is an aggressive timetable, so please keep us informed if you feel you need further time. Some of the questions below include requests or suggestions for amendments to the text of the CWG proposal as reflected in Part 1 of the combined proposal. The ICG would like to state explicitly that we do not expect a further ICG public comment period to be necessary on the combined proposal if these amendments are made. While the ICG reserves the right to seek further public comment if we receive extensive amendments from the operational communities, we do not expect to do so at this time. RZM 1) Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, the ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to inform us whether or not the Verisign/ICANN proposal (available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pro… <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pro…>) for revising Root Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the transition proposal. 2) The names part of the proposal contains subtle but significant discrepancies in the way it describes the roles of the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) and the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM). It also seems to contain different requirements for a process to change those roles. Paragraph 1158 in Part 1 of the transition proposal describes the RZM and the IANA functions operator as separate “roles” with distinct functions, and says "should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation." On the other hand Annex S, the Draft Proposed Term Sheet (page 136), describe the IFO and RZM as "two roles that are performed by two different entities," and adds "any amendment to the roles and responsibilities of PTI and the RZM ... will require approval of the ICANN board [and the members of ICANN or a special IFR].” Which of these two approaches better reflects the consensus of the names operational community: the one embodied in Annex S or the one embodied in paragraph 1158? Paragraph 1158 does not clearly rule out having the RZM and IFO in the same organization, as long as the "roles" and "functions" are distinct. Whereas Annex S suggests (in bracketed language) that any change or merger in the roles would be subject to community accountability, 1158 suggests only a “wide community consultation.” The ICG would like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation. Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate. ccTLDs 3) We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG). The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.” Please let us know if you agree to this amendment. 4) The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005). This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether Part 1 of the combined proposal could be adapted accordingly. If the CWG agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for paragraph 1036 and any associated footnotes so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined proposal. 5) We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283). This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT. While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member. In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement. If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment. Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

1 0

FW: [Soac-infoalert] IANA Stewardship Transition: Full Steam Ahead - ICANN
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

From: soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive Sent: 23 September 2015 02:02 To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Subject: [Soac-infoalert] IANA Stewardship Transition: Full Steam Ahead - ICANN https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-full-steam-ahead Last week the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) met in Los Angeles to review and discuss public comments concerning the <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop…> Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions [PDF, 2.07 MB]. Upon review of the comments received, the ICGdecided to continue advancing the proposal as planned, aiming to make <http://t.co/rTV6179hO0> as much progress as possibleby the time of ICANN 54, scheduled for October 19-22. <x-apple-data-detectors://2> During its <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per…> public comment period that concluded on September 8, the ICGreceived more than 150 comments from a wide variety of stakeholders all over the world. The majority of the comments expressed support for the proposal. In some cases that support was qualified by suggestions, questions, and criticism that the ICG is working hard to synthesize and address as appropriate. ICG members worked diligently before and during the Los Angeles meeting to assess the comments. The ICG divided the comments into categories (for example, those related to the Post-Transition IANA, the Root ZoneMaintainer, etc.) and for each category the ICG is examining whether the comments have already been addressed in the proposal development process, whether clarifications are needed from the ICG, or whether the ICG will pose questions or request clarifications from the operational communities. That work is ongoing and is expected to be finalized this week. ICG communications to the communities will request responses by mid-October to allow the ICG to prepare in advance of ICANN54. The ICG's decision to adhere to its planned timeline as much as possible without sacrificing quality for speed is notable in light of indications that the work in Work Stream 1 of the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN's Accountability (CCWG) is likely to be delayed. The ICGis closely following the work of the CCWG and expects to have more clarity about the trajectory of the CCWG's work after that group meets at the end of this week. The ICG's aggressive work schedule will be carried out via <https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/> phone conferences and meetings which, as always, will be open to silent observers. The next ICGconference call is scheduled for <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> 23 September at 11:00 UTC. Finally, we chairs want to recognize in these busy days the hard work not only done by the communities, but our ICGmembers, our secretariat and ICANNstaff helping to ensure that we can move forward as effectively as we are. For more information, see <https://www.ianacg.org/> ianacg.org. Alissa Cooper, Patrik Fältström, Mohamed El Bashir ICG chair and vice-chairs Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 <tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 <tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 <tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Fwd: [Ianaplan] returning to the topic of IANA trademarks and domains
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 18, 2015

Sept. 18, 2015

Hi, The IETF Trust recently released a high level statement on what would be done in order for her to hold and maintain the IANA TM/domain It's also somewhat a call for any further suggestion so folks interested can jump into the discussions at the ianaplan. Cheers! Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net> Date: 19 Sep 2015 00:03 Subject: [Ianaplan] returning to the topic of IANA trademarks and domains To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan(a)ietf.org> Cc: We have discussed trademarks and domains in the past, and came to a basic agreement. Meanwhile, the names community has also indicated that the “IPR in an independent entity” model is acceptable to them. But the details for any of this are left for implementation phase. That phase will take place once the overall transition plan goes forward. The IETF Trust has worked in the background to understand the situation better, and obviously, if something needs to be done, ultimately there has to be agreements and concrete actions need to be taken. But before we are that far, we have to talk about the overall approach and find a common ground about the implementation with all three communities. With this in mind, the Trust has written up a high-level description of what it believes the approach could be. We thought that this would be useful for both this WG as well as for communication with others. Please see the description below. The Trust would appreciate any feedback you have. The goal is that after getting that feedback (and after revision as needed) we could have a description that can be used in discussing further implementation steps. Jari --- As a part of their transition proposal, the Internet Number Community stated that it was their preference that the IANA trademark and iana.org domain would be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, and from their perspective the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. On 8 February, the ICG asked the IETF and Internet Number Community to coordinate their transition proposals with regards to the trademarks and domains. Discussion in the IETF working group indicated that the proposals can be compatible. At the request of the IANAPLAN WG the IETF Chair on 17 February 2015 asked the IETF Trust whether the Trust would be willing to hold IANA intellectual property. Citing Article 5.2 of the Trust Agreement whereby the Trust could hold rights in intellectual property and domain names relevant to the IETF, the Trustees on 19 February said they would be willing to hold the IANA intellectual property. See http://trustee.ietf.org/documents/Trust-Minutes-2015-06-25-01.pdf At the request of the IETF Chair the IETF Trust has engaged in discussions with the Internet Number Community about the possibility of the Trust assuming this responsibility. The following is some background of the Trust’s position and an overview of how the role and responsibilities may be fulfilled. While this fulfillment is a part of implementation rather than the ICG proposal currently out for public comment, the IETF Trust wants to ensure progress on determining those implementation steps. The Trust is of course only one of the possible ways to satisfy the requirements from the Internet Number Community. Nevertheless, the Trust wanted to start by suggesting an overall framework for one way of satisfying the requirements. There will be a time to discuss the details, but first it would be good to have an understanding if this overall framework is something that works for the relevant communities. This is only an early proposal. Feedback and suggestions are very welcome. The Trust believes it would need to enter into three different types of agreements to effect the transfer of the IANA intellectual property (IP) and to enter into licensing arrangements with the IANA service provider(s). These agreements include: 1. An Agreement between ICANN and the IETF Trust transferring the IANA IP to the IETF Trust 2. Community Assurance Agreements between the IETF Trust and each of the names, numbers, and protocol communities (the IANA communities) regarding the Trust’s commitments to each as further described below, and 3. Agreement(s) whereby the IETF Trust provides for the use of the iana.org domain, or a subdomain, and licenses the use of the IANA trademarks to the IANA service provider(s) selected by the IANA communities. The Trustees are open, in principle, to the idea of entering into these agreements. The Trust understands that each community would need to follow its own internal processes before entering into any agreements, or selecting an IANA service provider. The Community Assurance Agreements with the IANA communities would establish and recognize the responsibilities for each community to identify and enter into agreement with their selected service provider, and for the IETF Trust to provide, update, and revoke licenses as needed to support these selections. In order to preserve the value and integrity of the IANA trademarks, the IETF Trust would maintain, license and monitor the use of the trademarks. Trust actions would include enforcement against unauthorized users and monitoring the quality and uses by the licensed user(s). The Trust would work with the relevant IANA communities to address issues involving a licensee before taking action to maintain the quality of the trademarks. The exact details of the agreements would be subject to negotiation among the affected parties. _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing list Ianaplan(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

1 0

GAO report is publicly available
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 18, 2015

Sept. 18, 2015

Dear all, GAO’s report on NTIA’s proposed transition of the IANA functions has been publicly released and is available via the link below: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-642 Warmest regards, Olivier

1 0

ICG Sixth Face-to-Face Meeting in Los Angeles
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

Dear all, ICG meeting information below for you to follow remotely if you would like. The Agenda shows sessions linked to CWG work. Best, Grace https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-09-17-en ICG Sixth Face-to-Face Meeting in Los Angeles <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-09-17-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-09-17-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-09-17-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-09-17-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-09-17-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-09-17-en#> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will be holding its next face-to-face meeting on Friday 18 September and Saturday 19 September from 09:00 17:00 in Los Angeles at the THE WESTIN BONAVENTURE, 404 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071, USA (San Gabriel Meeting Room). Time zone conversions here: Day 1 <http://icgsec.asia/1isZusf> , Day 2 <http://icgsec.asia/1USrfvn> UPDATE: Agenda <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/agenda/agenda-icg-meetin g_6.pdf> [PDF, 70 KB] Observers are welcome to attend the session in-person. Information on remote participation and additional language streams are as follows: Virtual Meeting Room https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/ Audio/Bridge Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ * AR Conference ID: 82855066 * EN Conference ID: 9295725 * ES Conference ID: 68385764 * FR Conference ID: 75929475 * PT Conference ID: 759752 * RU Conference ID: 345720 * ZH Conference ID: 825702 To follow the ICG and learn more about the IANA Stewardship Transition please visit: https://www.ianacg.org <https://www.ianacg.org/> . To contact the ICG Secretariat: admin(a)icgsec.asia

1 0

FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 13, 2015

Sept. 13, 2015

All, Please see attached from Sidley. This addresses the feedback and discussion from the CWG call yesterday. Lise and I have discussed this version and we are satisfied that we can submit this to the CCWG public comment as is. However, as discussed yesterday, we will wait 24 hours (until 12h00 UTC, Saturday 12 September) before doing so. If you do have additional comment or input, please do provide ASAP, ideally by 23h59 UTC today (Friday 11 Sep) and, in any event, no later than 12h00 UTC tomorrow (12 Sep). Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 September 2015 04:02 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter Dear Client Committee, Attached is a revised draft of the comment letter which reflects the discussion today, along with a few clean up edits. We’ve attached a clean copy and a redline against the Tuesday draft. Best regards, Holly and Sharon SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan(a)sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

5 11

CWG IANA Stewardship comments to CCWG 2nd draft Proposal
by Lise Fuhr Sept. 12, 2015

Sept. 12, 2015

On behalf of the CWG IANA Stewardship we hereby submit our comments to the CCWG Accountability 2nd draft proposal. Best regards, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson CWG IANA Stewardship Co-chairs

2 2

CWG comment to the ICG - SLE
by Lise Fuhr Sept. 11, 2015

Sept. 11, 2015

Dear Alissa and vice-chairs, We understand that the ICG allows comments to be submitted to the end of this week. We hereby have the pleasure of submitting the SLE-document as decided on the CWG call Thursday, September 10th 2015 as part of our comments to the ICG in order for the SLE to be formally included in the final proposal. As described in our proposal p.25, paragraph 137: The CWG-Stewardship also proposes a set of guiding principles that will help define the expectation for the monitoring and reporting environment, and guide the definition of the individual criteria used for reporting and assessment of the naming-related portions of the IANA Functions. Work to define the final SLEs will be on-going in order to be included with the proposal submitted to the NTIA and will be run in parallel with the ICG process to review the CWG-Stewardship proposal. The objective is to ensure that the naming proposal is not delayed by work to define the SLEs and so to optimize use of the time prior to the final submission of a proposal to the NTIA. If you have any questions or comments please dont hesitate to contact any one of us. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson IANA CWG Stewardship Co-chairs For and on behalf of the CWG

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #65 -- 10 September 2015
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 10, 2015

Sept. 10, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 65 on 10 September 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/rYRYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * Action (Chairs): send the SLE final document to the ICG. * Action (Sidley): edit and update the document (Sharon confirms she can deliver to CWG today) Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Two main topics for today: SLEs and CCWG comment * Will also have an update on the legal work * Chairs submmitted a comment to the ICG Public Comment period regarding IANA IPR resolution. 2. 2nd reading of SLEWG output * Paul Kane has sent edited version based on last week's call * Martin Boyle submitted edits on list that will be discussed Review of edits made since last week: * P.8 added a parenthetical phase on transfer verification * P. 11, P.15, P.16, and P.23 switched "ie" to "eg" to reflect difference for some ccTLDs with regard to Root Zone changes * P.17 removed the prefix "note" and involved the CSC * P.25 added a phrase to complement text on standardization Martin's proposed edits * P.8 -- in Category IV, would prefer deletion of the word "externally" --> Change accepted --> COMPLETE: delete the word "externally" on page 8 * P. 11, P.15, P.16, P.23 : change "Time for third-party review of request ( <http://e.g.by/> e.g.by ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification parties)" to "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board adoption of the change report." Could also accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." --> Change modified --> COMPLETE change to "e.g. by the ICANN Board of Directors, the PTI Board of Directors, or other relevant verification parties" * P. 17 Process performance note: incorporate in the table --> change modified --> COMPLETE put this sentence in bold font so as to show emphasis. Second reading: any objections to this document being considered final? No objections noted. Action (Chairs): send the SLE final document to the ICG. 3. Update on legal work * Met with Client Committee last week * Bylaws work is being tracked -- updated version was sent on 8 September 4. Public Comment to CCWG-Accountability * Budget: the CWG is happy with veto right (instead of approval). * Community Empowerment Mechanism: requirement met * IFR/Special IFR: requirement met * CSC: requirement met * PTI: requirement met * Separation Process: requirement met * Appeals mechanism: There needs to be some mechanism through which actions or inactions of PTI can be addressed. If the IRP can meet the CWG requirement for PTI appeals. If not, this needs to be delevoped. Additional work that needs to be developed includes standard for PTI review. * Fundamental Bylaws: requirement met Action (Sidley): edit and update the document (Sharon confirms she can deliver to CWG today) CWG will have 24h to approve and then the CWG Chairs will submit this into the CCWG public comment before its close on 12 September at 23:59 UTC 5. AOB Cancel next week's meeting and restart calls on 24 September at 17:00 UTC 6. Closing Remarks Thank you for participating -- next call will address implementation role, if any.

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #64 -- 2 September 2015
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 10, 2015

Sept. 10, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 64 on 02 September 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/D5FCAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: text should read e.g ICANN Board not i.e. ICANN board Action: adjust p.15, A4 so that it is consistent with the rest of the document (and on page 8) Action: circulate redline of those changes so that the document can be approved at next XWG meeting Action: finalize question of billing management at the next meeting. Action: refer Sidley to transcript and audio at this point of the meeting (about 1h into the call) so that they can incorporate the discussion on budget into their Public Comment drafting work. Action: Sidley to consider whether the scope of the enhanced IRP is adquate to cover PTI decisions. Notes 1. Opening remarks * Calls scheduled every two weeks * Since the last meeting, the Chairs have submitted a clarification on the IANA IPR issue (to the ICG). * SLEWG has done their work -- thank you! * Client Committee has met to discuss Bylaws and an update will be provided in #3 2. Review of SLEWG output * Thank you to SLEWG for really hard work! * After ratification, IANA staff will develop plan for testing and implementation (with NTIA approval since ICANN is still under contract) * Principles were approved by the CWG earlier in they year * Key point in "Assumptions": ensure that each element of IANA's work is measured Martin Boyle questions/review: * has concerns on the process to approve changes in new regime (p.8 and p.15) -- not clear where the responsibility for authorization lies "externally". Is the external party the ICANN Board or PTI Board or another? This is particularly important in the case of ccTLD delegations. * --> for gTLDs the ICANN Board is the external party. For ccTLDs, the situation is different: third party only confirms process is followed. * Second question is about emergency changes (p.17) -- what was this just as a note and did not appear in the table? * Status tracker reporting on p. 14 -- is this a general service that can be made available to all TLDs? Action: text should read e.g ICANN Board not i.e. ICANN board Action: adjust p.15, A4 so that it is consistent with the rest of the document (and on page 8) Action: circulate redline of those changes so that the document can be approved at next XWG meeting Next Steps: * Timing is of concern so Chairs will need to monitor testing & implementation * Proposal will not be re-submitted to the ICG since this work was known to be done following submission and based on principles that are in the proposal. * Formal ratification will occur at next CWG meeting. 3. Update on legal work * Client Committee has not met in a while (since 9 July), but met earlier this week to review current and potential future work * Sidley has produced a Bylaws matrix and is itimately versed with the work of the CWG and CCWG, so we'd like to request them to draft the Bylaws. * CCWG and CWG have different drafting processes: the CCWG has ICANN holding the pen on the first draft, while the CWG has Sildey holding the pen. * A coordination meeting will be held on Friday between the CWG,CCWG, Sidley and ICANN to commence work. * Sidley will track and report on whether the CWG requirements are being met, and continue to be met, by the CCWG work. * Did touch on the issue of financial control and management. Chairs have planned to follow up with ICANN on this. Sidley has requested that the detailed billing (not the overall billing) is kept confidential. The Client Committee has the option of seeing the billing confidentially, but needs authorization of the CWG to do so. Any comments? * Notes, recordings, transcripts from the meeting are posted here: <https://community.icann.org/x/MoBCAw> https://community.icann.org/x/MoBCAw. Action: finalize question of billing management at the next meeting. 4. Update on CCWG-Accountability related issues IANA Functions budget: * is this subject to a veto or approval? Our intention was to have one or the other, and the CCWG has proposed the veto option. Confirming that this "veto" meets our requirements. * Martin suggests the ICANN-IFO contract contain an item about the budget to ensure responsibility * The CWG needs to be vigilant regarding the implementation. Jonathan raises the question about role of group in implementation Action: refer Sidley to transcript and audio at this point of the meeting (about 1h into the call) so that they can incorporate the discussion on budget into their Public Comment drafting work. Appeals mechanism: Attention given to ccTLDs ability to appeal issues (not related to delegations/redelegation until the ccTLDs determine a process for that). Action: Sidley to consider whether the scope of the enhanced IRP is adquate to cover PTI decisions. SCWG: No action required. CCWG has reviewed the issue and aware of the community mechanism needed to apply to the SCWG in the future. 5. AOB Proposal for another CWG meeting next week at 17:00 UTC in order to address the Sidley draft of public comment submission to CCWG and ratify the SLEWG document. 6. Closing remarks Close, see you next week

6 11