- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

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

May 29, 2015

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

3 2

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

May 29, 2015

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

8 9

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

May 28, 2015

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

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #51 - 28 May (Session 2)
by Brenda Brewer May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA High Intensity Meeting, Session 2 - 28 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%2351 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: Elise to send updated text to the CWG list Action: Flag under Section IV that separation of physical infrastructure is recommendation for integrity of IANA services (may not being required as part of transition but would be good practice) Action: Alan to provide answer on what "proposed entity" should be replaced with? Action: DT-O to provide responses on last items in time for next meeting (to continue where we left off) Notes Overall Timeline / Milestones * 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - review final proposal (sign-off?) * 8 June - submission to SO/ACs * 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - Next steps, communication, other issues * W/C 8 June - Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June? * 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires Current schedule for rest of meetings: * Meeting #52 (19h00 to 21h00 UTC) - Continue Public Comment Actions Items Summary * Meeting #53 (07h00 to 09h00 UTC) - Scope of PTI, PTI Board Composition * Meeting #54 (10h00 to 12h00 UTC) - Accountability mechanisms * Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) - Remaining open issues including implementation Audio only: Eduardo Diaz; How to communicate responses to comments: * We will publish Public Comment Review tool on PC page * We will publish final version of document * We will communicate final version to community through members, through webinars, etc. General Comments (comments in document) Section I -- Community's use of IANA (comments in document) Text proposed by Elise: CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA we don't see any need for changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review post transition. Action: Elise to send updated text to the CWG list Section II - Existing pre-transition arrangements (comments in document) Section III - IANA Statement of Work (comments in document) Section III - Escalation Mechanisms (comments in document) Section III -- Framework for Transition to Successor IFO (comments in document) Action: Flag under Section IV that separation of physical infrastructure is recommendation for integrity of IANA services (may not being required as part of transition but would be good practice) Section III -- Root Zone Maintainer Function (comments in document) Action: Alan to provide answer on what "proposed entity" should be replaced with? Section III -- IANA Budget (comments in document) Action: DT-O to provide responses on last items in time for next meeting (to continue where we left off)

1 0

"Entity" responsible for approving major changes to the root zone
by Alan Greenberg May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

DT-F has pretty well decided that it is the ICANN Board that should exercise the approval function, but that had not been decided at the time the document was frozen, so we used the term "entity" to refer to that as-yet unnamed body. Alan

1 0

DT-O Suggested Responses to Public Comments
by Gomes, Chuck May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

Here are the DT-O Suggested Responses to Public Comments for CWG consideration. Chuck “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

1 0

Public comments action items summary
by Marika Konings May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached a brief overview of the issues that were raised in those comments that were flagged as action items in the color coded action item list<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Color%20Coded%20P…>. Please keep in mind that this is just a summary to facilitate discussions. You are expected to have reviewed the full submissions which can be found here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1…. Best regards, Marika

1 0

FW: DT E - SAC69
by Marika Konings May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

Recirculating as requested during today's meeting. Best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Monday 23 March 2015 19:50 To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] DT E - SAC69 Dear All, As discussed during the last meeting, please find attached a first attempt by staff to map SAC69 against the latest draft of the proposal. As always, any comments / edits are welcome. Best regards, Marika

1 0

CWG PC - Latest Version of Major Trends Analysis
by Bernard Turcotte May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

For our meetings later today. Cheers. B.

1 0

Agenda for High Intensity and 1st meeting detail
by Grace Abuhamad May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

Dear all, Here is the agenda for our first meeting as well as the structure for the rest of the high intensity meetings. Agenda for Meeting #50 (11h00 13h00 UTC) 1. Opening Remarks 2. Overall Timeline / Milestones 3. Plan for High Intensity Meetings 4. Level Set & Capture Journey to date 5. Public Comments a. Mechanics b. Areas of Agreement c. DT Updates / Responses to Public Comment 6. AOB 7. Closing Plan for rest of meetings: * Meeting #51 (15h00 to 17h00 UTC) Aim to address overarching structure and supporting accountability mechanisms * Meeting #52 (19h00 to 21h00 UTC) Further work on Public Comments detail Friday 29 May * Meeting #53 (07h00 to 09h00 UTC) Scope of PTI * Meeting #54 (10h00 to 12h00 UTC) PTI Board Composition * Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) Remaining open issues including implementation

1 0