- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft
by Martin Boyle March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Colleagues, My apologies, but following the Christmas break I failed to progress this discussion. I now attach a revised draft, still with a major outstanding issue in g. (page 2). There are two variants for g.ii. One simply reduces the previous paragraph to read "For ccTLDs, respect national sovereignty;" at the request of the GAC. The other is more closely based on, but shortens, the previous text: "For ccTLDs, policy decisions may be made locally through nationally agreed processes in accordance with national laws and in compliance with IETF technical standards. Post transition of the IANA function nothing will be done by ICANN/IANA to impact the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and gTLD Registries." The draft contains a number of marked up edits from previous discussions that seem to have general agreement. For the text redlines: 1. I have deleted the section heading "Introduction": there are no other section headings, so this appears to be superfluous. 2. Principles b. and c. (previously sub-clauses to the heading on security, stability and resilience) are now stand-alone at the request of the GAC. 3. Accountability & transparency (e.): a. Paragraph i: two edits that appear to have general agreement. b. Paragraph ii: a new edit to correct the text. The new version amends the text to reflect the sub-heading. The old version put it the other way around. c. Paragraph iv: Footnote on capture added as requested courtesy of Alan Greenberg & Milton Mueller. d. Paragraph vi: While I think we all agree on the need for some form of appeals process, there is still some debate as to where that should lie. So for example, the appeals process might well not be designed by the CWG and might be the responsibility of the CCWG. For ccTLDs, it might mean that a third party might have a say over a national decision on a ccTLD. I flag this in case further thought is needed in the light of discussion over the last few days. 4. Service levels (f.): a. Paragraph ii: I think the majority view is that automation should only be for routine functions (and not for controversial or subjective decisions such as on redelegations). b. Paragraph iii: Previously a stand-alone point. 5. Policy based (g): other than some minor editing, there are two alternatives for g.ii. as noted above. I would note that there was no support in our last discussion to retain g.vi. (require bottom-up modalities) as this is treated elsewhere (in particular in the chapeau text to g.). 6. Diversity of customers (h.): some (I hope) minor and uncontroversial edits in the chapeau and in i. and ii. The text in paragraph iii was generally agreed. 7. Separability: modifications to i.i. and i.iii generally agreed in the last discussion. 8. Multi-stakeholder principle paragraph j: generally agreed in the last discussion subject to concerns about wording (the previous text appeared to recommend direct involvement in the management of the IANA function).

12 28

Observer subscription to cwg-client list
by Grace Abuhamad March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Dear all, Alan requested that CWG members/participants be able to subscribe to the cwg-client mailing list in observer status. This means that you are receiving mail, but not granted posting rights: this is equivalent to "read-only". As Jonathan noted in his reply to Alan, this permits better access. Jonathan asked if anyone had reservations to this idea, but I have not seen any to date. I have started to receive requests to be added to this list as observers. So, if you have any reservations, please post by 17:00 UTC. At that time, if no reservations, I will add those who have requested (and of course will add anyone else who wishes to be on the list at a later date). My current list of requests is as follows: * Brenden Kuerbis * John Poole * Eduardo Diaz * Alan Greenberg (assumed since he made the suggestion) Best, Grace On 3/11/15 1:43 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > Jonathan, Mailman mailing lists can be configured s that: > > 1. Only list managers can see the subscriber list > 2. Any member of the list can see the list (if they know their list password) > 3. Anyone can see the subscriber list > > Most ICANN lists are configured as 1 or 2. > > If you scroll down to the bottom of > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship, you will see > that you need to enter your e-mail address and its password for this > list to see the subscribers. > > As Grace noted in the chat during today's meeting, she has now > changed the cwg-client list to have its subscriber list viewable by > anyone as I had suggested (see > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client) > > Alan > > At 10/03/2015 12:36 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > >> Please clarify "that the list membership be viewable to all, >> regardless of whether they are members of the list or not"? Do we >> not do that already. >> > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

6 5

guidance to the CWG
by Chris Disspain March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Hello Lise and Jonathan, A number of registries have got together and produced the attached document as guidance to the CWG. Our goal has been to provide the CWG with some clear information about the thinking of IANA customers about aspects of the transition from the USG. Whilst this guidance document is not, at this stage, specifically endorsed by registries, it has been put together with input from those registries listed below. It is intended to be constructive and to assist the various design teams with their work whilst at the same time providing guidance about the areas that registries may consider to be critical aspects of the plan that the CWG is designing. All of us are happy to engage with the CWG on any aspects of this document or answer any questions. Registries: auDA (.au) CIRA (.ca) Internet NZ (.nz) DENIC (.de) SIDN (.nl) Internet Infrastructure Foundation (.se) AusRegistry International Afilias Google Neustar PIR Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

2 1

Vol. 2: Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

Vol. 2: Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions https://www.icann.org/news/blog/vol-2-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions ICANN is compiling bi-weekly updates on the community discussions and progress of theIANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes. This information is positioned to help inform interested stakeholders in the recent developments in the processes, upcoming key dates, latest documents and drafts and a snapshot of any news coverage that occurs over the timeframe.‬‬ In brief * The protocol parameters and numbers proposals submitted to the ICG in January 2015 have moved into Step 2 of the Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali zation-24dec14-en.pdf> [PDF, 92 KB]. * The work in the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability have intensified, and both have activated a number of specialized teams focusing on specific issues. * CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability will hold face-to-face meetings in Istanbul at the end of March. * U.S. Senate Committees have questioned witnesses about the IANA Stewardship Transition and its implications for a variety of domestic and international issues. ICG * The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is now using a website independent of ICANN: http://www.ianacg.org <http://www.ianacg.org/> . (Note that ICANN, as convener and facilitator of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, will continue to provide information on the transition, as well as the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process, on its website, https://www.icann.org <https://www.icann.org/> .) * The ICG is planning to hold a face-to-face meeting 18-19 June in Buenos Aires before ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> . If necessary, the ICG may also meet on the morning of 20 June. Timeline of work: * Following discussions at ICANN 52 <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/> in Singapore about the possibility of extending the ICG timeline for finalizing the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal, the ICG has decided to proceed as much as possible with the protocol parameters and numbers proposals and revisit the timeline <https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1c1efipctyvchu/TimelineDiscussion-v8.docx?dl=0> in the future once there is clearer information on how much work the names proposal requires of the ICG and the wider community. * With regard to the protocol parameters and numbers proposals, the ICG has moved forward into Step 2 of its Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali zation-24dec14-en.pdf> [PDF, 92 KB]. Step 2 examines the compatibility and interoperability, accountability, and workability of the submitted proposals. Additional output of the ICG: * At its 25 February teleconference <http://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/> , in addition to the final consolidated proposal to be submitted to the ICANN Board for transmission to the NTIA <http://ntia.doc.gov/> , ICG members decided to also produce a report of the information it collects during its work to ensure the three components of the stewardship proposal – protocol parameters, numbers and names – are not in conflict. CWG-Stewardship * The pace of work in the Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANAStewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ) is increasing as the CWG-Stewardship enters a new phase of work using "Design Teams." In addition, the CWG-Stewardship will hold a face-to-face meeting in Istanbul <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/In-Person+Attendees> , 26-27 March 2015. As of 9 March, 18 CWG-Stewardship members and 15 participants have confirmed onsite attendance for the meeting. Updated draft proposal: * On 26 February, CWG-Stewardship published version 2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG%20-%20Draft%2 0Transition%20Plan%20V2.0%20updated.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=142536748 6000&api=v2> [PDF, 232 KB] of the draft transition proposal, on which it will base its future updates. In particular, the work of the Design Teams is designed to fill in the remaining gaps in the proposal. The CWG-Stewardship is also working to refine its document, Draft of Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Draft%20of%20Prin ciples_11%20December_clean.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1423050412000&api =v2> . The most recent version, sent to the CWG-Stewardship's mailing list for discussion, is dated 9 March 2015 <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150309/fb787018 /DraftofPrinciples-updated9March-0001.docx> , and is still a work in progress. A new way of working: * CWG-Stewardship has introduced a new way of working on the names proposal: small groups of CWG-Stewardship members are to form "Design Teams" that each work on a very specific issue related to the names proposal. The aim is for each Design Team to deliver the results of its work back to the CWG-Stewardship for its consideration and action within two weeks of the Design Team's creation. Approved Design Teams will maintain publicly archived mailing lists of their communications. As of 5 March, there were 11 proposed Design Teams <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List> . Legal counsel: * CWG-Stewardship's "Client Committee" has selected Sidley Austin LLP <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-March/002171.html> as legal counsel to the CWG-Stewardship. Sidley Austin will provide legal advice and consultation to the CWG-Stewardship as they develop their proposal. CCWG-Accountability * The work of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability (CCWG-Accountability) continues to gather speed with the formation of three new Work Parties (see "New Work Parties underway" below). The CCWG-Accountability will meet face-to-face in Istanbul, 23-24 March 2015 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In+Person+Attendees> , just prior to the CWG-Stewardship's face-to-face meeting at the same location. * The expected outcome of the Istanbul meeting is broad consensus on the work stream 1 mechanisms CCWG-Accountability will propose for public comment, launch date of 6 April 2015. New Work Parties underway: * WP1, Community Empowerment <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+--+Community+Empowerm ent> , has developed drafts of a number of accountability mechanisms <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> based on a standardized template. Mechanisms under investigation include how to mitigate against ICANN or NTIA choosing to terminate the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC). The outcome of which would be ICANN no longer being held to its Affirmation Commitments, including the conduct of community reviews and required implementation of review team recommendations. * WP2, Review and Redress <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+--+Review+and+Redress > , held its first teleconference on 27 February 2015. It has created four specialized sub teams: Community Compact regarding ICANN Mission <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Compact+Mission> ,Office of Ombudsman <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Office+of+Ombudsman> , Request for Reconsideration <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Request+for+Reconsiderati on> , and Independent Review <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Independent+Review> . WP2 plans to have all current drafting work completed by 19 March 2015, in time for the CCWG-Accountability's Istanbul face-to-face meeting. * The Stress Test Work Party (ST-WP) <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Tests+Wor k+Party> will hold its first teleconference on 11 March 2015 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891298> . Its work has led on from one of the four original sub-groups of the CCWG-Accountability, on Identifying Contingencies <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51413864> , and is using that original sub-group'smailing list <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/> to conduct its work. The latest version of the document that is the focus of ST-WP's activities, Using Stress Tests to evaluate existing & proposed accountability measures (v7) <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150307/ec8 f82ea/ApplyingStressTestsDraftv7-0001.docx> , was posted to the mailing list on 7 March 2015. Legal counsel: * The CCWG-Accountability's Legal Sub Team has been working on a draft document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/132V7P8nmyalhoso7zcevjW3_ox1laXn5JIEH3dD AF3A/edit?usp=sharing> outlining the issues it wishes to ask of legal counsel (see also "Legal counsel" in the CWG-Stewardship section above). The CCWG-Accountability hopes to use the same firm as chosen by CWG-Stewardship, but remains open to the possibility of choosing a different legal counsel if the CWG-Stewardship's choice proves not to be the most appropriate one for CCWG-Accountability. Updates on other transition-related activities US Senate hearings: * Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation * On 25 February, a U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation hearing, Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id =683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35 -56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&Y earDisplay=2015> , focused on the IANA Stewardship Transition and the changes to ICANN's accountability needed to facilitate that transition. There were three witnesses before the hearing: Lawrence Strickling, NTIA <http://ntia.doc.gov/> Administrator, ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé and U.S. Ambassador David Gross on behalf of the Internet Governance Coalition. The witnesses were asked about the relationship of the IANA stewardship transition to a variety of issues, including intellectual property rights, net neutrality, human rights online, openness and innovation, international diplomacy and U.S. security. * * Senate Committee On Appropriations, Subcommittee On Commerce, Justice, Science, And Related Agencies * On 27 February, during the Subcommittee's hearing, Financial Year 2016 Department of Commerce Budget <http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings-and-testimony/cjs-subcommitte e-hearing-fy16-department-commerce-budget> , U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker was asked why there was a need to remove the U.S. Government from the IANAstewardship role. The webcast can be viewed here <http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/webcast/cjs-subcommittee-hearing-fy16- department-commerce-budget> . Upcoming key dates 19 Mar 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #30 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 11:00-13:00 UTC 23-24 Mar 2015CCWG-Accountability Face-to-Face Meeting <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/In+Person+Attendees> , Istanbul 25 Mar 2015ICG Call #14 <https://www.ianacg.org/upcoming-icg-calls-13th-14th/> , 20:00-21:00 UTC 26-27 Mar 2015CWG-Stewardship Face-to-Face Meeting <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890325> (Meetings #31 & #32), Istanbul 18-19 Jun 2015ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> , Buenos Aires Latest documents and drafts 10 Mar 2015 CCWG Accountability - Draft Legal Scoping Document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/132V7P8nmyalhoso7zcevjW3_ox1laXn5JIEH3dD AF3A/edit?usp=sharing> 7 Mar 2015 CCWG Accountability Stress Test Work Party - Draft 7: Using Stress Tests to evaluate existing & proposed accountability measures <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150307/ec8 f82ea/ApplyingStressTestsDraftv7-0001.docx> 9 Mar 2015 CWG Stewardship - Draft of Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150309/fb787018 /DraftofPrinciples-updated9March-0001.docx> 26 Feb 2015 CWG Stewardship - Draft Transition Plan version 2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG%20-%20Draft%2 0Transition%20Plan%20V2.0%20updated.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=142536748 6000&api=v2> [PDF, 232 KB] ICG - Process Timeline version 8 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/5w9jg2bfv6gr7xm/TimelineDiscussion-v8.docx?dl=0> IANA Stewardship Transition in the news 27 Feb 2015Internet, Stati Uniti a marcia indietro: in pericolo la nuova governance <http://www.corrierecomunicazioni.it/tlc/32874_internet-stati-uniti-a-marcia -indietro-in-pericolo-la-nuova-governance.htm> , corrierecomunicazioni.it, [IT] 26 Feb 2015奥巴马不会把互联网控制权交给中国 <http://www.qstheory.cn/politics/2015-02/26/c_1114438882.htm> , Qiushi [CN] Internet-Verwaltung: Schlagabtausch im US-Senat zur IANA-Reform <http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Internet-Verwaltung-Schlagabtausch-i m-US-Senat-zur-IANA-Reform-2559818.html> , Heise Online [DE] You can play a role … Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANNaccountability.For information on joining CWG-Stewardship, contactgrace.abuhamad(a)icann.org. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contactaccountability-staff(a)icann.org. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 17 March 2015

1 0

NEW: CWG Calendar invite
by Brenda Brewer March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

Dear CWG, The CWG Staff would like to expedite the email information you receive regarding meeting calendar invites. We previously offered an "opt-in" process for you to receive calendar invites directly to your email. Many of you took advantage of the 'opt-in' versus receiving invites through the 'notify list' and then downloading to your calendar. Going forward for all CWG, we will move to send a calendar invite directly to your email address with as much lead time of event as available. If, for privacy purposes, you wish to NOT receive calendar invites directly to your email address, please advise me at <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org> brenda.brewer(a)icann.org. If you do not want calendar invites directly to your email address you will continue to receive iCalendar invites 24 hours prior to call through the Notify list. As always, the meeting schedule and calendar is posted on the CWG Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> here. Thank you for your attention to this request. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Kind regards, Brenda Brewer brenda.brewer(a)icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>

1 0

For your review - version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan
by Marika Konings March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

And now with the attachment. Apologies, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday 18 March 2015 11:16 To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan Dear All, Please find attached version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan. This version includes the following minor revisions: * Edits to address the points raised by Andrew * Edits to address the comments from Brenden * Edits to clarify some areas, fix typos and fix a couple of places where we still had references to NTIA and/or contractor in the proposed language. To facilitate your review, the previous redlines have been accepted and only those changes that were made to this version are in redline. Of course, that should not prevent you from making any comments, edits or questions on any other parts of the document. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Principles Document
by Martin Boyle March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

Dear all, Following last week's call, I have discussed outstanding issues with those parties who had raised concerns about different parts of the text. I am grateful to them for their understanding and willingness to look for solutions and I am pleased to note that we have a near consensus document in the attached. There have been a number of small edits made in response to Andrew Sullivan's comments seeking to clarify the wording. These are in the heading and paragraphs 4, 5.iv & the second sentence of paragraph 7.ii. On the more difficult issues: * Seun has agreed to a revised (and simpler) text for footnote 1 (paragraph 5.2): "The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service." This replaces the text proposed for the 12 March call, "The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service, independent of the organisation that hosts it, currently ICANN." * Mary has agreed to drop her proposal in paragraph 10, to replace "must" by "should". This returns us to the original text of, "Multistakeholderism: any proposal must foster multi-stakeholder participation in the future oversight of the IANA functions." The outstanding point is on the first sentence of paragraph 7.ii. Elise Lindeberg has consulted within the GAC and proposed the text included in this current draft. Milton Mueller and Andrew Sullivan have both accepted this wording, but Paul Kane has rejected it. He has been invited to consider an alternative that he could work with. I'm afraid I will be a little late joining the call on Tuesday, but I hope we will be able to use the call to finalise the text. Martin

7 10

DT Status Overview
by Marika Konings March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached the latest Design Team status overview that now includes the information for DT L as circulated earlier today as well as various membership and mailing list updates. Note that for each DT marked priority 1, staff support has been assigned and included in the overview so that those groups know who to reach out to for assistance. Best regards, Marika

3 2

Client Committee
by Jonathan Robinson March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG's work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise

16 55

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #29 17 March
by Brenda Brewer March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #29 - 17 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891803 Action Items Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis) Action: What is the origin of the text in v.2.2 section III.A.1.1 now and what guidance has NTIA &/or ICG already issued. Action: All DTs aim to produce drafts for F2F by 18:00 UTC Monday Action: Call for volunteers and call for team lead COMPLETE (Grace): Add Erick to the DT-M mailing list Action (staff): relocate periodic review function and assess where it fits in the Draft proposal Action (Staff): Add Red Team at end of DT list to to examine whether there are any issues with respect to meeting NTIA's criteria, particularly with respect to security and stability and prevention of capture. This is a particular form of stress testing Action (Paul): send revised text to CWG for section 7.ii of the Principles Action (Martin): complete discussion on Principles on mailing list (including 7.ii. and footnote 1) Notes Seun is on audio only 1. Opening Remarks Great to see CWG embracing DT work Need good sprint from now on (to finish developing the proposal) 2. Proposal 2.2 * * Chairs realize that there is an issue with the short notice with which documents are circulated (24h notice). This is due in part because of the fast pace of meetings and work. Would be great to include content from RFP subgroup work into the draft, specifically RFP4 and RFP5 that were led by Robert and Cheryl Action (Robert & Cheryl): suggest text to fill out sections 4 and 5 of proposal (Wiki will serve as basis) * Milton asks question about text in section III.A.1.1. * Jaap has indications that the numbers proposal is not detailed enough (heard in Singapore) * Overarching question: Is CWG going in the right direction in terms of implementation detail? Action: What is the origin of the text in v.2.2 section III.A.1.1 now and what guidance has NTIA &/or ICG already issued. * Note (Milton): ICG has reviewed the numbers and protocols proposals and has not raised any questions about their level of detail) * Jari calls for all discussions on proposals to be public. ICG has discussed the 'level of detail' question * DT-L title could be changed to "separation mechanics" Staff note: DT-L had changed their title to 'IANA Functions - Transition Plan Actions' since the start of their work <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SyfZ_Yb6AitLzFOwmPZeLmzv8deTFMwQ-GT5jyk…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SyfZ_Yb6AitLzFOwmPZeLmzv8deTFMwQ-GT5jyk… 3. Design Teams a. Istanbul cut-off on Monday 18:00 UTC Action: All DTs aim to produce drafts for F2F by 18:00 UTC Monday b. Update on DT-A (Paul Kane) * * This is the Service Level Expectations group. * Will have document for comment/discussion in Istanbul * Got statistics from TLDs about interactions with IANA (IANA is performing well and generally responsive within minutes). * Group is working on documenting the status quo with real-world analysis * Difference between SLA and SLE: SLA requires two parties to proactively agree. If the 'internal' model is proposed, then there will not be two parties for the 'agreement'. The SLE sets a threshold and standard for performance. Effect is the same. * Where will group be at the end of the week? The document will be 80% concluded. The document is likely to be deficient on the issue where there are hostile assignements/reassignments. * Need to consult with CWG to create exhaustive list of missing information / outstanding issues and formally ask NTIA for permission for IANA to release information c. Update on DT-B (Bart Boswinkel on behalf of Allan MacGillivray) DTB will send survey to ccTLD community this week to determine whether an appeals mechanism is needed to address delegation/redelegation, and if so, what requirements are requested? d. Update on DT-C (Donna Austin) * * Hope to have a draft available for discussion in Istanbul. * IANA staff contact and NTIA staff contact have been identified (they are only present for clarification when requested by the group) e. DT-D (Cheryl Langdon-Orr) * * Group has met minimum membership requirements and started to work through template document * It is DT-D's intention to have document ready by Monday deadline (at least for comment) f. DT-F (no lead) Action: Call for volunteers and call for team lead Suggestion from Milton to merge with DT-D. g. DT-L (Matthew Shears on behalf of James Gannon) * * Developed draft over past few days * Still open to volunteers h. DT-M (Chuck Gomes) COMPLETE (Grace): Add Erick to the DT-M mailing list i. DT-N (Avri Doria) Put together a basic template (open for comment on Google docs) Action (staff): relocate periodic review function and assess where it fits in the Draft proposal One of the purposes of working in DTs is to put the Function before the structure. Requirement appears to be missing for periodic review of operational performance -- not sure if this is part of DT-N or not. Action (Staff): Add Red Team at end of DT list to to examine whether there are any issues with respect to meeting NTIA's criteria, particularly with respect to security and stability and prevention of capture. This is a particular form of stress testing 4. Principles Greg raises issue on term used in footnote 1. --> "Unit" may be better term than "entity" Discussion of 7.ii Proposal from GAC was accepted by others who commented on this section, except for Paul Kane. Paul can talk us through on this call or provide new text. Action (Paul): send revised text to CWG for section 7.ii of the Principles Action (Martin): complete discussion on Principles on mailing list (including 7.ii. and footnote 1) 5. Update from Client Committee * * Mailing list composition has been modified to have Client Committee and Sidley only (posting rights). The rest will be observers (no posting rights) * Sidley should post to list regarding progress on FAQs 6. AOB High Intensity 1-2 April -- placeholders will be sent in case needed 7. Closing Remarks See you in Istanbul

1 0