- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Notes from Meeting #35 on 13 April at 11:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Meeting #35 on 13 April at 11:00 UTC Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks 2. CCWG-Accountability Update 3. DT-O (budget) 4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals) 5. DT-N (Periodic Review) 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks Notes: 1. Opening Remarks * Welcome -- chairs are co-located in ICANN Brussels office for two days. * 6 sessions in high intensity meeting: structural discussions with Sidley and functional/operational discussion with DTs. * Convergence of views is critical. Amazing work and coordination in Istanbul. Let's retain that spirit. * Need to develop and work on relationship with CCWG-Acct. Both groups (CWG and CCWG) use Sidley Austin as legal counsel. Need to further refine the list of requirements/recommendations for CCWG. They are aware of the time pressure we are under, and that they are thus under as well. * There was a request to move DT-A to meeting #36, and we have therefore pushed up discussion on DT-N. 4 areas of input for CCWG-Acct: * ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions) * Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option) * Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism) * Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues) The CCWG-Acct Chairs of the will do a recap today of where things stand from their end. 2. CCWG-Accountability Update (Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill) The group has been further developing its building blocks for the accountability framework. Some of the elements being looked at include Board recall, independent review panel, inclusion of periodic review in the bylaws. CCWG has a vision for the advanced accountability infrastructure and CCWG is working with two firms to see how the requirements can be implemented under CA law. CCWG is considering dividing WS1 into two areas of focus. First priority would be the the CWG requirements. If there could be a list of items elaborated from the 4 areas of input, that would be useful to CCWG. Also useful to have use cases for testing. All 26 CCWG-Acct stress tests appear to satify the work/vision of the CCWG-Acct. Some have been identified already as relating to the CWG. Work is ongoing and satisfactory for now. Wiki link: https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw 3. DT-O (budget) * DT-O worked quickly and closely and had assistance from Xavier Calvez * Explanation for recommendation 2: ICANN does not capture its costs on a functional basis. ICANN's Finance team has provided an itemization for FY15. Doing this for FY16 is not possible yet, because the CWG hasn't decided on a structure. * Annex X suggests items to be addressed in the future. These are items that would need to be reviewed once there is clarity on what the CWG proposes as a solution. * No disagreement with DT-O recommendations * CCWG is looking at a budget veto -- is this a dependency that needs to be addressed with the CCWG? * Who should be consulted as part of the budget process for IANA? Question to consider as we develop the rest of CWG proposal * If there was a veto for IANA aspects, who gets to exercise the veto? * The CCWG is providing the community with the tools. We need the community veto tool Statement for CCWG: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed. 4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals) * Dealing with question of whether or not there was a need for a ccTLD appeals mechanism * Survey closed on 3 April (only 28 responses were received) * Low response rate would not allow mandate for CWG to proceed with designing an appeals mechanism now. * So recommendation is to not pursue this now * The ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date. * For gTLDs, are the appeals provisions already? Only if there is an agreement. If a gTLD is not delegated, then there is no agreement and provisions to rely on. However, since this is a policy issue, it may not be appropriate for the CWG to require this of the CCWG. Statement for CCWG: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the DT-B survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (it is not required as part of the transition proposal). 5. DT-N (Periodic Review) * These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews. * First review after 2 years, and then every 5 years after that * Are there other cases that could trigger reviews (other than the calendar? The CSC should be able to trigger a review after an emergency has been dealt with * The periodic review could initiate a RFP is review results indicated that this was a necssary next step. Is this something that the CWG thinks is in scope? Yes, but perhaps a question for public comment * Does the review expand to address IANA policy? * Suggest language "no more than 5 years" for the review period. Action (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks

1 0

Draft recommendations from Design Team C - Customer Standing Committee
by Donna Austin April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

All Apologies for the delay in circulating this document to the list. It was provided as part of Grace's reading list, but not provided separately. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

1 0

Fwd: [client com] "Punch List"
by Greg Shatan April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

All, Attached is a "punch list" prepared by Sidley, showing decision points in our work as identified by counsel. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 4:58 PM Subject: [client com] "Punch List" To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Dear Client Committee: As discussed on our call yesterday, attached is a draft of the “punch list” of points for discussion and feedback on the transition model. Best regards, Sharon *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** 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. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

1 0

Remember to send questions and comments to legal advice from Sidley Austin
by Lise Fuhr April 12, 2015

April 12, 2015

Dear all, Many of you were eager to discuss the memo from Sidley on our CWG call today. To reaffirm what I said on the call, we will have a full discussion of this memo during the high-intensity meetings on Monday and Tuesday next week. As part of preparation for the group and for the legal counsel, we've asked that you provide written questions and comments on list. While these two phases (preparation, then discussion) seem to draw out the conversation, we believe it actually makes for a more productive discussion for all parties. Having written questions in advance allows for the group to read and digest the information, and for the legal counsel to prepare their briefing to the group. We used this approach for the Istanbul meeting and found that the preparation played an key part in the success of the discussion. Once more I would like to encourage you to send your questions and comments to the list by 13:00 UTC on Thursday so that they may be compiled and presented to the Client Committee for their call. Best regards, Lise

11 26

FW: DT-L final template and proposal text
by Grace Abuhamad April 12, 2015

April 12, 2015

Forwarding on behalf of Matt Shears and DT-L. The documents have been added to the Reading List here: <https://community.icann.org/x/vCMnAw> Grace On 4/11/15, 1:35 PM, "Matthew Shears" <mshears(a)cdt.org> wrote: >Hi > >Attached please find the template and proposed text for DT-L for the CWG >proposal. > >These should be as close to final as we are going to get short of >incorporating any further inputs from the broader CWG. > >I would like to thank the DT4 team and of course Grace for her >invaluable support. > >Matthew > >-- >Matthew Shears >Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >+ 44 (0)771 247 2987 >

1 0

READING LIST for High Intensity Meetings 13-14 April
by Grace Abuhamad April 11, 2015

April 11, 2015

Dear all, Here below is a reading list to prepare for the high intensity meetings on 13-14 April. This list includes the Design Team recommendations, the latest draft proposal, and the latest advice and consultation from Sidley Austin. This is posted on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/vCMnAw Reading List There are 8 items to read: documents #1-4 and the submitted DT recommendations (yellow status). The rest of the DTs are listed for information. 1. Draft Proposal v. 3.0 2. Sidley Austin Post-Istanbul Memo (4 April) 3. Sidley Austin Draft Response to Questions/Comments (9 April) 4. Design Team Status (2 April) 5. DT-A DT-A (service level expectations) did not submit on 10 April. Expected to complete work by 17 April. 6. DT-B DT-B (ccTLD appeals) submitted recommendations to the CWG on 10 April. 7. DT-C DT-C (customer standing committee) did not submit on 10 April. 8. DT-D DT-D (authorization function) has been reviewed by CWG and incorporated into draft v.3.0. 9. DT-E DT-E (sac 069) was completed by staff and incorporated into draft v.3.0. 10. DT-F DT-F (relationship with RZM) did not submit on 10 April. Expected to complete work by 17 April. 11. DT-G DT-G (IANA intellectual property rights) is priority 2. Chairs to provide update. 12. DT-H DT-H (.INT) is priority 2 and has not yet been addressed. Chairs to provide update. 13. DT-I DT-I (competition policy and conflicts of interest) is priority 2. Chairs to provide update. 14. DT-J DT-J (confidentiality and conflicts of interest) is priority 2. Chairs to provide update. 15. DT-K DT-K (OFAC licensing) is priority 2. Chairs to provide update. 16. DT-L DT-L (transition plan) did not submit on 10 April. 17. DT-M DT-M (escalation) submitted recommendations to the CWG on 10 April. 18. DT-N DT-N (periodic review) submitted recommendations to the CWG on 10 April. 19. DT-O DT-O (budget) submitted recommendations to the CWG on 10 April. 20. RED TEAM Red Team has been reassigned as a committee of the whole CWG. See section IV of draft v.3.0 for the outline proposed by staff. *You can download all of the documents at once by clicking on the "download all" button on the bottom left corner. Documents File <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Reading+List+for+High +Intensity+Meetings+on+13-14+April?sortBy=name&sortOrder=ascending> Modified <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Reading+List+for+High +Intensity+Meetings+on+13-14+April?sortBy=date&sortOrder=descending> PDF File CWG - Draft Transition Plan V3.0.0.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52896700/CWG%20-%20Draft%2 0Transition%20Plan%20V3.0.0.pdf?api=v2> about an hour ago byGrace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File SidleyMemo_4April.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52896700/SidleyMemo_4April .pdf?api=v2> about an hour ago byGrace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File SidleyResponse_9April.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52896700/SidleyResponse_9A pril.pdf?api=v2> about an hour ago byGrace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File CWG Design Teams - Status 2 April 2015.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52896700/CWG%20Design%20Te ams%20-%20Status%202%20April%202015.pdf?api=v2> 11 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File DTB Report Final.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52896700/DTB%20Report%20Fi nal.pdf?api=v2> 4 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File DT M - Draft - FINAL clean - 10 April 2015.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52896700/DT%20M%20-%20Draf t%20-%20FINAL%20clean%20-%2010%20April%202015.pdf?api=v2> 3 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File N-PeriodicReviewofIANAFunctions-150410.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52896700/N-PeriodicReviewo fIANAFunctions-150410.pdf?api=v2> 2 minutes ago by Grace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> PDF File DT O - 9 April 2015.pdf <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52896700/DT%20O%20-%209%20 April%202015.pdf?api=v2> less than a minute ago byGrace Abuhamad <https://community.icann.org/display/~grace.abuhamad> 1. Drag and drop to upload or browse for files Download All <https://community.icann.org/pages/downloadallattachments.action?pageId=5289 6700>

1 0

DTN-N Periodic Review of IANA functions
by Avri Doria April 11, 2015

April 11, 2015

Hi, Have attached the outcome from DT-N Review. Unresolved issues include: - Can a Periodic Review of the IANA Function be triggered by something other than the calendar? If so, how? - Can a Periodic Review of the IANA trigger a tbd RFP mechanism? If so, how? We did not believe that these topics were strictly required by our scope because of their larger implications, but they were discussed in terms of Periodic Review initiation and content. The team members could not reach quick agreement and decided not to dwell on these topics. avri with thanks to the DT participants --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

1 0

DT M (Escalation Mechanisms) Recommendations
by Marika Konings April 10, 2015

April 10, 2015

Dear All, On behalf of DT-M (Escalation Mechanisms), please find attached the proposed recommendations in relation to escalation mechanisms. Based on the input provided by DT C, DT M made a number of adjustments to accommodate the concerns that had been expressed concerning the possible expansion of the mandate for the CSC. DT M is of the view, however, that the CSC has a role in escalation - if it would not be the CSC, who or what else would fulfil this role? Also, DT M would like to emphasise that based on the input that has been provided by IANA, the customer service complaint resolution process is currently available to anyone that wishes to submit a complaint, but it is only used sporadically. There is no reason to believe this would suddenly change following the transition. As such DT M is recommending that to a large extent the existing approach and processes are followed, but with the option for direct customers to escalate to the CSC if the issue is not resolved adequately by IANA. DT M looks forward to receiving the feedback from the CWG and discussing this further during our upcoming meetings on Monday and Tuesday. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-M Meeting #7 10 April
by Brenda Brewer April 10, 2015

April 10, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-M Meeting #7 on 10 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895704 Notes Comments from DT C not completely clear - does reserving step 2 only for direct customers address concern? Concern about not having an option for non-direct customers to raise an issue if they see something that is wrong. It has not been an issue to date - number of complaints from non-direct customers are very limited. It would only get to CSC if issue cannot be addressed by IANA team. Send draft transmittal note to DT M after this call - comments to be provided within approx. 4 hours following which it will be sent to full CWG. (Need to acknowledge concerns regarding role of CSC in the resolution process, but someone will need to make the decisions - if not CSC, who would it be? Complaints are not expected to be excessive - at least not based on current data) Kind regards, Brenda

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-C Meeting #7 10 April
by Brenda Brewer April 10, 2015

April 10, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-C Meeting #7 on 10 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896084 Action Donna & Staffan Raise issues around 1. Potential overlap and divergence in interpretation of CSC with respect to its role in escalation process (limited view) 2. Placeholder for role in development/evolution of (new) services. Potential conflict with strict monitoring role. However recognition role is necessary Notes Mission Includes language why it was established (first sentence) Agreed Include /change to : as it relates to monitoring the performance of..." Last paragraph Agreed Scope of responsibilities First sentence (new) Agreed Change to fifth paragraph: CSC is NOT a dispute mechanism CSC may receive complaints (re statistics, etc.) NOT for individual cases. Staffan: DT M was not pleased with responses (see Staffan's email) Martin: Useful to know, as to why DT M the CSC should go into details of other people problems DTM process approach, Martin: CSC part of potential forum shopping Staffan: Fear of forum shopping. Sooner or later, deadlock of each other Donna: Potential issues may have arisen from one of the papers According to this paper Stephanie: Question from Chuck ( DT M) whether escalation Raise issue at DT leads New sentences As suggested by David Martin: Generally agreement , suggested refinement of language "This consultation is expected to include any *proposed* changes to the IANA services that are underway or are anticipated in the future. " Stephanie Strike underway. Kurt: Retain expertise if necessary, expand the option. Staffan: If CSC has an expended mandate, make it not too big Donna: Await Donna: CSC is first and foremost a monitoring entity. On the other hand David C, changes No Authorization CSC can facilitate consultation, _. IFO should take it forward ad implementation is its responsibility. CSC should not be in the position. Donna: DT CSC is uncomfortable with role of CSC to undertake a role in development There is a need for such a mechanism, but need somewhere else The CSC has an overview role. Overview is typically problem oriented, a reactive function to mend what doesn't work in a predefined order. Development (innovation) of IANA functions is not necessary in the scope of the CSC (maybe rather in IETF) Composition Only change, accepted Terms: Recall of Members New language: Agreed Review Separate the review of charter and effectiveness of CSC itself on -> one Martin: review of charter in two year. Turn round: At the request CSC, GNSO or ccNSO Service levels review targets> it is initiated in one of the annual meetings. Should be driven by need Stephanie: agrees with Martin Review of Service level targets will be most important piece of data for review service Change second paragraph: can be done at request of CSC, ccNSO and GNSO Final Sentence: should be picked - up though in annual meeting, or as part of review of SOW. Martin: Good point Kurt, if SL no longer appropriate -> to be raised. CSC should be able to raise issue and then go through consultation. CSC should not be put in a position to review every 18 month Last paragraph: The CSC or IFO, can request changes any time, any proposed Martin: replace "changes" -> review Donna: need a reasonable quick process to change -------- (04/10/2015 14:45) --------------------- Donna Austin, RySG: The CSC or the IFO can request a review or change to service level targets. Any proposed changes to service level targets as a result of the review must be agreed by the ccNSO and GNSO. Add : in accordance with a pre-defined process Include general sentence around mechanism to define and change processes (to be approved by GNSO and ccNSO)

1 0