- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

High Intensity Work Phase & Design Teams
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

All, Active participation will be essential as we enter what looks to be a high-intensity phase of our work. As if it wasn't already you might say! If we are to work successfully with agile Design Teams, it will require very active participation both in those teams and in bringing the work back to the CWG. Therefore, please can you all make every reasonable effort to both attend the meetings, actively participate in the Design Teams and be aware of the relevant prior material. In so doing, you will be clearly be best prepared for the meetings and able to contribute most substantively. Thank-you Jonathan & Lise Note: Records of attendance are kept from each meeting and available online https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Attendance+Log+CWG-Ste wardship

1 0

Alternate configuration for Integrated model
by Avri Doria Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Hi, After the discussion on Tuesday we, the AdHoc Team (AHT), started thinking about how to react to the admonition against presuming any sort of acceptance by the Protocol and Names communities in the model. https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mK5jum6NqhELcGJHntcH9NoZBEk6_tuTWUof3y… This briefly describes one possible configuration with which the Integrated model could be achieved by using a opt-in Membership based Shared Services Arrangement. (MSSA). This is still an early draft and open for comments. Additonally, while presenting the model and various configurations to a NCSG webinar today, there was a recommendation that we produce process diagrams similar to those produced for the first Frankfurt meeting. We will start working on that over the next days. Once there is a basic document it will be shared for comment in the same way the rest of the documents in the model have been. Also presented the Integrated model to the At-large Working Group on IANA Stewardship and Accountabity. Various capture scenarios were discussed in that meeting that would need to be covered in any stress tests for solutions models. Will work on a document discussing some of the various capture threats and how they are dealt with in the Integrated model. thanks avri

1 0

Client Committee Update
by Greg Shatan Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

16 40

Replacement of ALAC Member
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Lise and Joanthan, On behalf of the ALAC, I am announcing that Fouad Bajwa has resigned as a Member of the CWG representing the ALAC due to health reasons, and he has formally been replace by Cheryl Langdon-Orr. Fouad will revert to being a Participant. Alan

1 0

Draft Proposal Version 2.0
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

All, As discussed, on a few occasions recently, a new base version of a draft proposal - V2.0 - has been prepared. The attached draft is a starting point and intended to be dynamic and evolving in a form that is: a. consistent with the ICG RFP b. able to be cross-referenced with the already submitted proposals Overall, the primary purpose of this V2.0 draft is to provide a basis from which to map and manage our future work, including providing anchor points for both commissioning and absorbing the work of the Design Teams. We hope it will also be a beneficial reference for those who are observing or tracking the work of the group Note that this draft doesn't include all of the work of the RFP III & RFP IV sub-groups. To the extent that their prior work is not included in the document, the work of these sub-groups should be seen to be valuable reference material and/or a basis for any relevant design teams. We trust this will be seen as a useful addition to the work of the group and we look forward to working with you to further develop this document. Thank-you, Lise & Jonathan

3 2

CWG - Design team proposals
by Bernard Turcotte Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

All, A reminder that we are looking forward to receiving your suggestions for Design Teams to address specific issues for the CWG Transition proposal. Please forward your suggestions to the list as soon as possible. Bernard (for Lise).

4 5

NCSG answer to the 9 questions
by Avri Doria Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Hi, Attached are NCSG responses to the 9 questions approved by our Policy Committee. Thanks for the patience. avri

1 0

Call for suggestions to design teams
by Lise Fuhr Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Dear all, This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team. Included are an example of relevant design teams, the "Draft Working methods" and "Draft Design team Guidelines". Best regards, Jonathan and Lise

9 17

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee -- Further Update
by John Poole Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Dear Greg: Thanks for the update and your offer--"If there are any specific subjects you would like me to try to cover, please let me know"-- 1. Each prospective firm's understanding of the scope of representation required by CWG-Stewardship in this matter. 2. Each prospective firm’s experience, generally, in Corporate (including non-profit), Contract, and Trust law and litigation (state and federal), and specifically, in California and the New York Supreme Court (Manhattan) jurisdictions. 3. Each prospective firm's understanding of the identity of the client in this matter, and the respective roles of ICANN, ICANN legal staff, and ICANN counsel. In addition, it may be helpful if you would explain to CWG-Stewardship the specific role(s) being played within the Client Committee and its processes by ICANN staff, including specifically, Samantha Eisner, a member of the ICANN legal staff who you indicated "will also be on the calls"--*e.g.*, (a) Why is Samantha Eisner on the calls? (b) What role has and is she playing within the Client Committee? (c) Will she also be asking questions and interviewing the prospective firms, if so, why? (d) Did ICANN unilaterally disqualify or eliminate from consideration any of the prospective firms originally on the Client Committee list, and if so, can you identify the firm(s) and the reason given? Finally, given that your scheduled interviews will be completed March 2, and you have indicated further steps will be required thereafter, what is now your best estimate of the date when a firm will actually be retained and available to CWG-Stewardship as independent legal counsel? Best regards, John Poole > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:42:52 -0500 > From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee -- Further Update > Message-ID: > <CA+aOHUT5EQDzLsNGcH0xwU+ogWFi= > RHNB8bNN0_wwNr4XxPV-Q(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > All: > > The Client Committee has now scheduled conference calls with each of the > three "short list" firms. These meetings are scheduled for Thursday, > February 26, Friday, February 27, and Monday, March 2. The calls are > expected to last 60-90 minutes. > > In addition to the Client Committee, Leon Sanchez, a member of the CCWG > legal committee, will be sitting in on most, if not all, of the calls. > Samantha Eisner, a member of the ICANN legal staff, will also be on the > calls. > > Each of the firms have seen the legal scoping document and the Singapore > discussion document, and provided a link to the CWG's wiki page They were > also informed of today's US Senate hearing beforehand. > > As noted before, we will ask the firms' permission to reveal their > identities at this stage and for permission to circulate their > submissions. We will also make clear to them that, if chosen, the > representation should be designed to meet transparency and accountability > standards beyond those typically encountered in the attorney-client > relationship (which tend to value confidentiality and the maintenance of > the attorney-client privilege) > > I expect that we will schedule a call for as soon as possible after the 3 > meetings take place to discuss and compare the firms and move forward > toward engaging one of the firms on our behalf. We may also have further > prep/debrief calls around the conferences. > > In a addition, we are in the process of preparing documents to memorialize > our initial selection criteria/process, so that it can be better > understood. We will keep you informed of the process as it progresses. If > there are any specific subjects you would like me to try to cover, please > let me know. > > Greg > > -- > > *Gregory S. Shatan >

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #23 24 FEB
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #23 on 24 February are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889144 Action Items: Action (Donna Austin) Need list of names for Service Levels Design Team Action (Paul Kane): proposal needed for Service Levels DT Action (Allan MacGillivray) submit proposal for IAP Notes 24/2: Opening Remarks Committed to a refreshed approach Bernie has been developing a version 2.0 draft: 1. can be used as a map 2. compared to other proposals 3. can be used as a backbone to hang incremental progress (such as work of the Design Teams) Finalization of Work Methods * Meet twice per week as CWG (as much substance as possible) * 3 meeting slots for Design Teams: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Sign+Up+Meeting+Slots> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Sign+Up+Meeting+Slots * Role of Chairs in Design Teams: coordinate and manage the fact that DTs are not all running at the same time and that there are not too many people in one DT, etc. Integrated Model Presented by Avri Doria * Idea started at ICANN52 * Wanted to preserve what is most important about IANA as we know it (continuity). * Didn't expect to build another model, was looking for compromise points (but it turned into another model) * There is a degree of separation in all of them (today this exists too -- the IANA team is functionally separate) * Included notion of a community Board including all three operational commnities (sort of a "MRT plus" because accountable to greater community) Questions/Discussion * Community Board is an accountability anchor (includes other operational communities) * This model would make IANA one degree further of separation from what currently exists with GDD * Model proposers advocate for the model, but have flexibility with the variants. Preference for shared services model. * Andrew Sullivan: Subsidiary approach is most doable in this year's timeframe * Elise Lindeberg: Possibility for separation of IANA: how can this be done in this model? Response (Avri Doria): can be done but would require a process (initiated by ICANN or Community Board) * Milton Mueller: not sure I understand how separability works. Response (Avri Doria): there are different degrees of separation already today * IAP is something that still hasn't been worked on * Alissa Cooper: The whole discussion about additional involvement from the IETF/RIRs in oversight seems like a distraction from trying to solve the core issue of contention before this group, which is where the oversight of the names function will end up on the internal-to-external spectrum. Integrated Model Related Links * The Integrated Model Description: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvKDEIaeHdre3BQXHNe1K3hCA95dsFWqWAz2Kg5… * Discussion of accountability in the model: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cKpQ3lenL8Gt6qT6r7JRePlujXp9_xM0c1SlrTF…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cKpQ3lenL8Gt6qT6r7JRePlujXp9_xM0c1SlrTF… * Post Transition IANA Community Board discussion: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SwtczN5HzlC5m-IogNQWezDl2sKIHc82ysRnn9y…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SwtczN5HzlC5m-IogNQWezDl2sKIHc82ysRnn9y… Recap by Chairs * Favoring of the subsidiary model; * Lots of mention of accountability (coordination there) * IAP needs to be further developed Discussion of Proposed Design Teams Some ideas that have been discussed: * Service Levels * IAP * CSC Action (Donna Austin) Need list of names for Service Levels Design Team Action (Paul Kane): proposal needed for Service Levels DT Action (Allan MacGillivray) submit proposal for IAP * Propose to have a "funnel" or list of potential Design Teams, but we'll start with 3 and record the rest for future work * Proposals must be submitted on CWG mailing list but the Chairs are to review AOB * A liaison from / to the ICANN board: will not develop the idea at this advanced stage of the CWG * Timetable including F2F meeting in one month: will be producing a fresh version soon. The F2F meeting will take place in Istanbul on 26-27 March. * Note: Standards of behaviour, tone of discussions: please keep things civil on list. Depending on how you participate, it may limit how robustly you may respond; please be mindful of that * RFP subgroups: We will no longer run the RFP sub groups. Will meet as committees of the whole instead. RFP coordinators will continue to be relied on for support. Closing Remarks Thank you Avri and colleagues for substantive meeting Next meeting is on Thursday 26 February at 11:00 UTC

2 1