- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Notes call#4 of the IANA Transition CWG intensive working weekend
by Marika Konings Jan. 11, 2015

Jan. 11, 2015

Dear All, Please find below the notes from call #4 of the IANA Transition CWG intensive working weekend. Best regards, Marika Notes #4 1. Roll Call Will be taken from Adobe Connect attendance On phone only: none 2. Welcome - objective of call #4 Review accountability issues and linkage with CCWG 3. Review Survey 2 - Accountability Accountability - Green items (convergence) * Ideally, the CWG would have begun its work following the adoption of recommendations by the CCWG-Accountability (question 3) * Ideally, the CCWG-Accountability would have begun its work before or at the same time as the CWG-IANA, so that the groups could work in parallel (question 4) * ICANN should formally link the CWG and CCWG processes to ensure tha tthe work moving forward takes into account equities from both processes so that in the end the community, ICANN and NTIA have two well informed and robust plans to ensure the Internet's continued growth and evolution. (question 6) * Enhanced accountability (regardless of who the IANA Functions Operator is) must be in place prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition (question 7) * Following the publication of theh CCWG's draft recommendations, an assessment should be conducted by the CWG to determine whether the outcome of the Accountability Process provides a satisfactory appeals mechanism (question 9) * A placeholder should be included in the CWG-IANA proposal that is submitted to the ICG to allow for further evaluation and work as needed after the CCWG track 1 recommendations are finalized (question 10) 4. Operational accountability NTIA transition comes with oversight of operations and oversight of ICANN's broader accountability and governance. What is work of this group and what is linked to the work of the CCWG. CWG must provide accountability mechanisms for operational aspects (ensuring continuous improvements / SLAs, rebidding if operational agreements are not met). Operational accountability to be supervised by the CSC and MRT. But also factor in how CSC and MRT are accountable themselves. Solve issues at the 'lowest' level possible (principle of subsidiarity) - See also notes from yesterday's meetings regarding CSC and MRT. Consider reviewing SAC69 for applicable principles. Possible accountability steps (as suggested by Bertrand): 1) transparency, 2) direct request to the IANA operator by the entity conserned, 3) complaint to the CSC; 4) appeals; 5) annual review by (CSC or MRT). 5. Broader accountability / Linkage with CCWG-Accountability * It is still possible for CWG to provide input to the scope of the CCWG * What, if any, components of CWG proposal are conditional on the CCWG's work - needs to be communicated to the CCWG Review CCWG-Accountability High Level Statements / Conditionality components * Response to request from CWG identifying three specific items and requesting feedback and input for the intensive working weekend. CCWG responded that it is not in a position yet to provide any work results yet and provided some high level statements. Consider what needs to be communicated back to the CCWG. * How can CWG help steer the work of the CCWG? * What conditions of CWG proposal may be conditional on the outcome of the CCWG and what is the feedback loop? Consider giving them specific items to address, for example, the ability for a registry operator to appeal a delegation decision (which happens before it gets to IANA in the case of gTLDs). Consider pulling out items from this weekend's work to build a list of items to be provided to the CCWG. What is the dividing line between the accountabilty issues that need to be dealt with by CWG and what issues have to be dealt with by the CCWG before a transition can occur. List could be divided into issues related to internal and external option. Consider also whether general statements should be communicated to CCWG - in cases where it is not clear whether an issue should be dealt with in ws 1 or 2, put it in ws 1 to be on the same safe; consider creating a ws 3, needs to be a guarantee that a recommendation needs to be implemented, but does not need to be finalised by date of transition. Possible poll questions: should the CWG recommend that the CCWG exercise caution when placing items in WS1 and WS2, and in case of doubt err on the side of caution and put in WS1. The CWG recommends that the CCWG consider a sub-workstream to ws 1 that would inlude issues that need to have implementation guaranteed before the transition but that can be implemented after the transition (this may also be relevant for RFP4). Action item: Alan Greenberg to develop first draft of list of possible items for CCWG consideration (with idea to finalize list during next meeting on Thursday) 6. Wrap up / Moving forward * Chairs Statement following the weekend meeting communication critical points as well as links with CCWG, timeline * Timeline - initial objective was to have sufficient input coming out of this meeting to prepare a final proposal during next week. This timing needs to be reviewed - what remains a realistic timeframe considering where the CWG is in its process. Revised timeline needs to be conditional on obtaining legal advice, achieving community support for proposal in the event there is no further public comment forum, obtaining approval from SO/ACs in timeline set (consider asking chartering organizations how much time they need). Need to identify dependencies. Chairs will need to have a dialogue with ICG on these possible changes to the timeline as it also affects their timeline . * Legal advice - important component both for internal as well external to ICANN solution, will also have an impact on timeline. Immediate priority. * Singapore meeting - need to be able to show where progress has been made and what areas are still open. 7. Confirm next meeting * Thursday 15 January at 14.00 UTC. Other meetings to be confirmed shortly after this meeting.

1 0

Corrected Statistics & raw data
by Robert Guerra Jan. 11, 2015

Jan. 11, 2015

As mentioned in call #1 this morning, Let me share the following documents : 1. Corrected statistics for ContractCo&IAP Survey 2. Spreadsheets (Excel) with summary of fundings of the two surveys. There are two spreadsheets - for CSC/MRT & ContractCo/IAP regards Robert

2 2

Notes from call #3 of the intensive working weekend
by Marika Konings Jan. 11, 2015

Jan. 11, 2015

Dear All, Please find below the notes from call #3 of the intensive working weekend of the IANA Transition CWG. Best regards, Marika Notes Call #3 1. Roll Call Taking roll call from Adobe Connect room. Only on audio: No one 2. Welcome Recap from day#1: * Good progress made - taking input from the surveys to move forward in the conversations * Minute silence in recognition of events in Paris, France and other world events Objective of call #3 * Review remaining areas of the survey * Consider rationale / motivation for positions (what issue is being solved) * Call #4 will be dedicated to links with CCWG on Enhancing Accountability and accountability areas of focus for CWG * Chairs statement expected at the end of the meeting to communicate the results of weekend sessions and expected next steps Note: questions in the surveys were derived from comments/suggestions from the public comment forum - to facilitate CWG review and response to those comments. Remaining issues from yesterday: MRT - yellow questions from survey 1 * The MRT's primary function should be deciding whether to renew the IANA Functions Contract and whether the IANA naming functions contract needs to be amended (question 15) * Should be solutions oriented instead of only crisis management. * Question seemed to imply one single role, that may be too narrow. Remediation of problems should be first step before escalation. * How to avoid scope creep of MRT? Functions of MRT should pertain to renewal and staying with the provider, not going into the weeds. At the same time, MRT is multi-stakeholder platform where the community deals with issues related to the IANA Functions Operator whether these come via the CSC or annual reviews. IAP is ultimate escalation - needs two parties. Composition and size of the MRT should be difficult to alter or amend (question 21) * Answer depends on whether MRT is internal or external to ICANN. * Avri: there should be a stakeholder process to do it, but it does not need to be difficult. --> Existence of a proper process is an appropriate "difficulty" 3. Review Survey 2 Contract Co - Green Items , areas of convergence(unless marked differently) * Whether Contract Co. should be incorporated or not, and subject or not to a particular jurisdiction's laws shuold be examined by a neutral, unaffiliated expert (question 17). * Contract Co should be extremely light-weight and its purpose should be limited to holding contracts for the names community (question 19) * The bylaws of Contract Co should narrowly and clearly limit its activities. * Contract Co should be responsible for ensuring that root zone changes are in compliance with prevailing policy and then pass that change along to the Root Zone maintainer to be implemented (Disagreement - yellow item). CWG will need to deal with who needs to deal with authorization function, if it needs to be carried over after the transition. Not contract co - based on responses to survey. May not need to be something that is carried over, just because it currently exists in the contract. * The separation of the IANA functions and removal from ICANN should be seen as a last resort (question 30 - yellow item) * Circumstances for re-awarding the IANA Functions Contract should be limited to issues of non-performance relating to the IANA Functio, such as a failure to execute against established SLAs or non-adherence to contract terms (question 32). Is there a purpose in doing an RFP if you are not intending to change vendors? Is this question coherent with the position to have regular RFPs (see also question 31). Internal to ICANN - Green items, areas of convergence (unless marked differently) * If adequate accountability mechanisms are in place, an ICANN Internall option should be adopted (question 1 - yellow item). Further details may be needed to be answer this question, i.e. which accountability mechanisms. RFP3b will use RFP3 mailing list. Will schedule a first meeting on Tuesday or Wednesday coming week, possibly including a straw man to focus discussions. RFP3b focusing on options that do not have a Contract Co. * Adequate accountabilty mechanisms in an ICANN internal option should include the possiblity of removing the IANA Functions from ICANN. (question 2) * An ICANN Internal solution would be cheaper to implement and operate than the Contract Co. option (question 5 - yellow) * An ICANN internal solution should include a mechanism where the IANA Functions can be removed from ICANN for cause related to the IANA Functions and contraced out to a third party (question 6) * An ICANN internal solution should provide that Contract Co can be created if necessary (in order to contract out the IANA Functions (question 7 - yellow) * An ICANN internal solution should include a mechansims where the MS community may remove ICANN directors, or the entire Board for "cause" under specific circumstances related to the IANA Functions (i.e. serious and persistent issues of non-performance relating to the IANA Functions, such as a failure to execute against established SLAs or non-adherence to contract terms, and failure to follow applicable policy) (question 9 - yellow) IAP - Green items, areas of convergence (unless marked differently) * There should be standard procedures for catching IANA process errors before resorting to an appeals process. (question 1) * Existing arbitration providers should be used instead of creating a new body (question 2 - yellow) * A mechanism for an affected party to appeal a decisioin relating to the Root Zone would be beneficial for Internet stakeholders and consumers (question 3 - yellow) * Appeals should be managed differently, depending on whether the appeal involves a gTLD or a ccTLD (question 4) * Terms of reference for the IAP and details on the compositioin of the panel should be defined (question 5) * The IAP component of the IANA CWG proposal is crucial, and its location outside of both ICANN And the IANA oversight function is necessary (question 6 - yellow) * An appeal mechanism is not needed (question 9 - yellow in the negative - disagreement) * The ground for an appeal should be limited to whether or not relevant policy was followed (question 10 - yellow). Need to define what 'policy' means - appeals should be directed at decision-maker not IANA Function which performs clerical function. But alslo need to foresee situation in which IANA doesn't do anything or delaying making certain changes. * The appeals process should only challenge whether established policies have been properly applied or adhered to by the IANA Functions Operator. It should not evaluate the merits of such policies. (question 12 - yellow) * The appeals process should be binding on the IANA Functions Operator (question 13) * Standing to file appeals should be defined (question 17) * gTLD REgistry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegatioin decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to approved gTLD policy (question 18) * ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delectation decisions to which they are party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy (question 20) * The ccNSO or GNSO, as applicable, should have standing to appeal implementation of any approved policies relating to delegation of ccTLDs or gTLDs as applicable that they believe are inconsistent with those policies (question 22 - yellow). * Governments should have standing to appeal ccTLD delegation or re-delegation decisions that they believe are contrary to applicable laws only where that country's ccTLD is involved (question 24 - yellow). May need to measure this question and others against Framework of Interpretation WG work as it may already have been addressed there.

1 0

Some technical issues with AC room - we may have a couple of minutes of delay starting
by Marika Konings Jan. 11, 2015

Jan. 11, 2015

Apologies for this inconvenience!!! Marika

1 1

Notes from Meeting #2 - please review by Sunday 11 January at 11.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Dear All, Please find below the notes concerning CSC and MRT from today's meeting. If you have any comments / edits, please share these with the mailing list by Sunday 11 January at 11.00 UTC at the latest. Best regards, Marika ================ CSC - Green areas (areas of convergence) Remit / function a. There should be a CSC to carry out the tasks as defined the CWG Draft Proposal (question 1a of survey) b. The role of the CSC should be focused on service level commitments performance indicators and quality assurance (question 13 of survey) c. Periodic review of initial and future service level agreements (and a bi-lateral mechanic to bind IANA Function to those) d. Publication of QA and performance indicators, receiving reports from the IANA Functions Operator (possibly redacted if appropriate) e. Escalation power to MRT f. Dealing with issues in the aggregate (individual issues to be raised directly by users - see g.) Composition g. Users should have the opportunity to go directly to the IANA functions operator rather than being required to go via an intermediary (question 10, 11 and 12 of survey) h. The CSC should have a continuous existence (question 8 of survey) i. The CSC membership should primarily consists of ccTLD and gTLD registry operators with related experts (question 4 of survey) j. Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity (question 9 of survey) k. Consider CSC as a sub-set of the MRT (e.g. like executive / non-executive board, could meet periodicially, corralation of activities) l. Selection process needs to be defined (knowledge and skill component will be key), incl. how many members and how/who makes the selection (see for example SSAC membership application and review process). Terms should be defined. m. General conflict of interest arrangements (e.g. registry involved in a delegation / redelegation action that is under consideration by CSC must recuse themselves from the discussion) Lines of reporting n. Principle of subsidiarity (solve issue at the lowest level before escalating) o. Detail on issues of confidentiality need to be specified MRT - Green areas (areas of convergence) Lines of reporting a. The MRT should not recreate another ICANN (question 6 of the survey) Remit b. Adequate care should be taken to restrict the growth dynamics of the MRT (question 7 of the survey) Composition c. There should be multistakeholder representation on the MRT (question 8 of the survey) d. Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity (question of 18 of the survey) e. The term length of MRT members should be limited to two full contract cycles (question 22 of the survey). Refinement of term and term-limits needed. Function Initial Consideration of MRT's Functions (from the public consultation document): * Issue instructions (to Contract Co. if formed) (see also tie with RFP4) * Meet annually to review overall IANA Functions Operator performance * Annual IANA Budget Review * Address any escalation issues raised by the CSC * Perform certain elements of administration currently set forth in the IANA Functions Contract and currently being carried out by the NTIA * (Suggestion from Elise) Address any issue within their mandate as reviewing the IANA function operator * Annual review of key performance indicators * Platform for broader engagement with the community

1 0

URGENT PLEASE NOTE RFP-5 call today at 2100 UTC now postponed.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Following the Announcement I just made in the AC room for the current WG call please note that we have now POSTPONED todays RFP-5 call I do apologize for any inconvenience caused by this and ALSO urge you all to the Wiki page where we are drafting text in the interim to make you contributiuons, comments and text edits.... Thanks *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Technical issues with verizon bridge
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Hi All, Here are the new call details. Please let me know if you having difficulties UTC time: 19:00 21:00 UTC For remote participants: CALL DETAILS BELOW: Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-dt-stewardship/ **Upon Logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to dial out to your phone. ** Not at your computer? You can join by dialing one of the access numbers below. International dial in numbers: https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=7110842038&num=1-719-8 67-1571 Guest Passcode: 711 084 2038 From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, January 10, 2015 1:56 PM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Technical issues with verizon bridge Please note that there are technical issues from the Verizon side at the moment with the conference bridge which may cause some delays in starting our next meeting. Please be patient we are doing our best to resolve this as soon as possible. Marika

1 0

Technical issues with verizon bridge
by Marika Konings Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Please note that there are technical issues from the Verizon side at the moment with the conference bridge which may cause some delays in starting our next meeting. Please be patient - we are doing our best to resolve this as soon as possible. Marika

1 0

Notes from CWG IANA Meeting #14
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #14 call on 10 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416948 Action Items: None Notes: Please note that the documents in relation to item 3 were circulated to the mailing list just prior to this meeting. They include the survey questions for each survey, the Google survey results summary and an excel sheet analyzing the results. 2. Welcome - setting the scene for the weekend session * This is the first meeting of 4 meetings taking place this weekend. Co-chairs, co-coordinators and support staff are co-located to prepare efficiently for these meetings. * Maybe not as far along as originally hoped when this meeting was planned, but still considered important to hold these meetings to make progress * Need to focus on areas where the group can make real progress * Proposed content for 4 meetings, but these may shift depending on the outcome of each meeting. * May run a timer to ensure that all comments are focused and concise * CWG may need to review timeline at the end of the weekend session to assess whether or not any changes will need to be made * Focus call #1 on the outcome of the surveys - areas of convergence and divergence, followed by focusing on the details of those areas of convergence (call #2), possibly using AC polling tool. * Develop further details possible focus of call #3 and link with CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, including possible conditional links could be focus of call #4. 3. Review the results of the survey Surveys represent a sentiment of the discussions to date. Analysis includes responses received by the deadline. Results generated were generated by Google view. Three documents for each survey: 1) survey questions, 2) survey summary (auto-generated), 3) survey analysis (excel sheet) CSC_MRT Survey (document nr. 2 as circulated to the mailing list) %Agree includes strongly agree, agree, is acceptable, %disagree includes disagree, strongly disagree Strong Agreement (green on the spreadsheet) - Flag used to indicate that % Difference (% Agree - % Disagree) > 75% Agree - Flag used (yellow on the spreadsheet) - Flag used to indicate % Agree > 75%, but % Difference <75% 53 responses were received Contract Co - IAP Survey 34 responses received by the deadline revised version of the excel sheet will be circulated to correct some errors CSC - Green areas (areas of convergence) * There should be a CSG to carry out the tasks as defined the CWG Draft Proposal * The CSG membership should primarily consists of ccTLD and gTLD registry operators with related experts * The CSC should have a continuous existence * Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity * Users of the IANA naming function should be able to address issues directly with the IANA functions operator rather than being required to go to the MRT * The role of the CSC should be focused on service level commitments performance indicators and quality assurance MRT - Green areas (areas of convergence) * The MRT should not recreate another ICANN * Adequate care should be taken to restrict the growth dynamics of the MRT * There should be multistakeholder representation on the MRT * Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity * The term length of MRT members should be limited to two full contract cycles Contract Co - Green areas (areas of convergence) * Whether Contract Co should be incorporated or not, and subject or not to a particular jurisdiction's laws should be examined by a neutral, unaffiliated expert. * Contract Co should be extremely light-weight and its purpose should be limited to holding contracts for the names community * The bylaws of contract co should narrowly and clearly limit its activities * Circumstances for re-awarding the IANA Function Contract should be limited to issues of non-performance relating to the IANA function, such as a failure to execute against established SLAs or non-adherence to contract terms Internal to ICANN option - Green areas (areas of convergence) * Adequate accountability mechanisms in an ICANN Internal option should include the possibility of removing the IANA functions from ICANN * An ICANN internal solution should include a mechanism where the IANA Functions can be removed from ICANN for cause related to the IANA Functions and contracted out to a third party IAP - Green areas (areas of convergence) * There should be a standard procedures for catching IANA process errors before resorting to an appeals process * Appeals should be managed differently, depending on whether the appeal involves a gTLD or a ccTLD * Terms of reference for the IAP and details on the composition of the panel should be defined * The appeals process should be binding on the IANA Functions Operator * Standing to file appeals should be defined * gTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegation decisions to which they are a party they believe are contrary to approved gTLD policy * ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegation decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy Accountability - Green areas (areas of convergence) * Ideally the CWG would have begun its work following the adoption of recommendations by the CCWG * Ideally the CCWG would have begun its work before or at the same time as the CWG-IANA so that the groups could work in parallel * ICANN should formally link the CWG-IANA and CCWG processes to ensure that the work moving forward takes into account equities from both processes so that in the end the community, ICANN, and NTIA have two well informed and robust plans to ensure the Internet's continued growth and evolution. * Enhanced accountability must be in place prior to the IANA Stewardship transition * Following the publication of the CCWG draft recommendations, an assessment should be conducted by the CWG-IANA to determine whether the CCWG outcome provides a satisfactory appeals mechanism * A placeholder should be included in the CWG-IANA proposal that is submitted to the ICG to allow for further evaluation and work as needed after the CCWG track 1 recommendations are finalized. Green areas does not mean that work is 'complete' - further details are likely to be developed and agreed to. 5. Confirm agenda for meeting #2 Proposal to focus on first poll and areas of convergence (leave second poll results to tomorrow) - broad agreement to focus next meeting on CSC and MRT details. Next Meeting for Intensive Work Weekend: Saturday, January 10, 2015 @ 19:00 - 21:00 UTC Kind regards, Brenda

1 0

Notes meeting #1 intensive work weekend
by Marika Konings Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Dear All, Please find below the notes of meeting #1 of the intensive work weekend. Best regards, Marika Notes 10/1 – Meeting : Please note that the documents in relation to item 3 were circulated to the mailing list just prior to this meeting. They include the survey questions for each survey, the google survey results summary and an excel sheet analysing the results. 2. Welcome - setting the scene for the weekend session * This is the first meeting of 4 meetings taking place this weekend. Co-chairs, co-ordinators and support staff are co-located to prepare efficiently for these meetings. * Maybe not as far along as originally hoped when this meeting was planned, but still considered important to hold these meetings to make progress * Need to focus on areas where the group can make real progress * Proposed content for 4 meetings, but these may shift depending on the outcome of each meeting. * May run a timer to ensure that all comments are focused and concise * CWG may need to review timeline at the end of the weekend session to assess whether or not any changes will need to be made * Focus call #1 on the outcome of the surveys - areas of convergence and divergence, followed by focusing on the details of those areas of convergence (call #2), possibly using AC polling tool. Develop further details possible focus of call #3 and link with CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, including possible conditional links could be focus of call #4. 3. Review the results of the survey * Surveys represent a sentiment of the discussions to date. Analysis includes responses received by the deadline. * Results generated were generated by Google view. Three documents for each survey: 1) survey questions, 2) survey summary (auto-generated), 3) survey analysis (excel sheet) CSC_MRT Survey (document nr. 2 as circulated to the mailing list) * %Agree includes strongly agree, agree, is acceptable, %disagree includes disagree, strongly disagree * Strong Agreement (green on the spreadsheet) - Flag used to indicate that % Difference (% Agree - % Disagree) > 75% * Agree - Flag used (yellow on the spreadsheet) - Flag used to indicate % Agree > 75%, but % Difference <75% * 53 responses were received Contract Co - IAP Survey * 34 responses received by the deadline * revised version of the excel sheet will be circulated to correct some errors CSC - Green areas (areas of convergence) * There should be a CSG to carry out the tasks as defined the CWG Draft Proposal * The CSG membership should primarily consists of ccTLD and gTLD registry operators with related experts * The CSC should have a continuous existence * Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity * Users of the IANA naming function should be able to address issues directly with the IANA functions operator rather than being required to go to the MRT * The role of the CSC should be focused on service level commitments performance indicators and quality assurance MRT - Green areas (areas of convergence) * The MRT should not recreate another ICANN * Adequate care should be taken to restrict the growth dynamics of the MRT * There should be multistakeholder representation on the MRT * Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity * The term length of MRT members should be limited to two full contract cycles Contract Co - Green areas (areas of convergence) * Whether Contract Co should be incorporated or not, and subject or not to a particular jurisdiction's laws should be examined by a neutral, unaffiliated expert. * Contract Co should be extremely light-weight and its purpose should be limited to holiding contracts for the names community * The bylaws of contract co should narrowly and clearly limit its activities * Circumstances for re-awarding the IANA Function Contract should be limited to issues of non-performance relating to the IANA function, such as a failure to execute against established SLAs or non-adherence to contract terms Internal to ICANN option - Green areas (areas of convergence) * Adequate accountability mechanisms in an ICANN Internal option should include the possibility of removing the IANA functions from ICANN * An ICANN internal solution should include a mechanism where the IANA Functions can be removed from ICANN for cause related to the IANA Functions and contracted out to a third party IAP - Green areas (areas of convergence) * There should be a standard procedures for cathing IANA process errors before resorting to an appeals process * Appeals should be managed differently, depending on whether the appeal involves a gTLD or a ccTLD * Terms of reference for the IAP and details on the composition of the panel should be defined * The appeals process should be binding on the IANA Functions Operator * Standing to file appeals should be defined * gTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegation decisions to which they are a party they believe are contrary to approved gTLD policy * ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegation decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy Accountability - Green areas (areas of convergence) * Ideally the CWG would have begun its work following the adoption of recommendations by the CCWG * Ideally the CCWG would have begun its work before or at the same time as the CWG-IANA so that the groups could work in parallel * ICANN should formally link the CWG-IANA and CCWG processes to ensure that the work moving forward takes into account equities from both processes so that in the end the community, ICANN, and NTIA have two well informed and robust plans to ensure the Internet's continued growth and evolution. * Enhanced accountability must be in place prior to the IANA Stewardship transition * Following the publication of the CCWG draft recommendations, an assessment should be conducted by the CWG-IANA to determine whether the CCWG outcome provides a satisfactory appeals mechanism * A placeholder should be included in the CWG-IANA proposal that is submitted to the ICG to allow for further evaluation and work as needed after the CCWG track 1 recommendations are finalized. Green areas does not mean that work is 'complete' - further details are likely to be developed and agreed to. 5. Confirm agenda for meeting #2 Proposal to focus on first poll and areas of convergence (leave second poll results to tomorrow) - broad agreement to focus next meeting on CSC and MRT details

1 0