- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template
by Alan Greenberg March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Sorry, Jordan and anyone else I may have offended or put off. The word was poorly chosen. I certainly agree that no one should settle for less than they have today, and I have no problem with further clarity. I do have a problem with requirement which would force internal changes within IANA at the same time as the transition is going on. That violates the rule of making as few changes as possible in parallel. Alan At 01/03/2015 03:59 PM, Jordan Carter wrote: >Alan, all: > >Since operational communities want a workable solution, calls of >'hostage' are probably wide of the mark and to be honest don't help >the conversation flow. They could indeed unkindly be described as a >tactic designed to stifle debate. I can't see that being your >intention here, but it could be the effect of your words. > >We, IANA customers, need this system to work because our work in >turn depends on it. The names community should be entitled to at >least as good an outcome from the post-transition settlement as >today's settlement offers, but that baseline is no reason not to >pitch for greater clarity and certainty when we can. > >I've had some private correspondence suggesting there are some real >issues that mean my simple distinction & view isn't necessarily >workable. There may be substantive SLA improvements compared with >status quo that are needed. I don't know yet. If there are, I'm >happy to change my mind and argue they should be done as part of the >transition. > >Given the CWG has spent quite some time on a wide range of issues >that are of less importance than this, I'm sure some time spent >assuring operational quality won't be wasted. > >Will try and write more later today. > >Jordan > >On Monday, 2 March 2015, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >This worries me. > >How do we define "needs"? It sounds perilously close to that >community holding the transition hostage for something that they want. > >Alan > >At 01/03/2015 02:17 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: >>I've thought of a b/c mid point complication: >> >>It is: whether anything needs to be added to currently documented >>SLA standards to allow the transition to be acceptable to any key >>customer community. >> >>That's not a wholesale review but it's a little more than b), while >>respecting the need for conservatism and efficiency.... >> >>Jordan >> >>On Sunday, 1 March 2015, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com > wrote: >>+1 to Jordan's specific suggestion as well; considering that >>everything works just fine right now is an indication that >>repeating the current SLA would at least maintain status quo. >>Will be good if that methodology is applied to other design teams >>as much as possible. >>The goal is to build a stronger ICANN and so long as we have >>a multistakeholder means/process to do that, then our job is done. >>Cheers! >>sent from Google nexus 4 >>kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>On 1 Mar 2015 01:46, "Chris Disspain" <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: >>You read me right, man ;-) >> >> >>Cheers, >> >>Chris >>On 1 Mar 2015, at 11:35 , Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: >> >>>Hi all, >>>I think Chris's proposal makes sense too in logically separating: >>>a) porting across existing service level obligations to the >>>post-transition environment; >>>b) creating the possibility of reviewing and changing them in future; and >>>c) reviewing and updating the substantive content >>>If I read him right a) and b) should be done, but c) should not. >>>That might trim the work this design team needs to do and make >>>finalising the names community proposal easier... >>>cheers >>>Jordan >>>On 1 March 2015 at 08:56, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >>>Hi, >>>Makes sense to me. >>> >>>avri >>>On 28-Feb-15 18:43, Chris Disspain wrote: >>>>On that basis I wonder whether we would not be better served by >>>>accepting the current status quo and building a mechanism for >>>>review and negotiated changes to those service levels that could >>>>be employed immediately after transition and on an ongoing basis. >>>>Thoughts? >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >><http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Jordan Carter >> >>Chief Executive >>InternetNZ >> >>04 495 2118 (office) | <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649>+64 21 442 649 (mob) >>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >>Skype: jordancarter >> >>A better world through a better Internet >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org ><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > >-- >Jordan Carter >Chief Executive, InternetNZ > >+64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > >Sent on the run, apologies for brevity >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org ><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > >-- >Jordan Carter >Chief Executive, InternetNZ > >+64-21-442-649 | <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > >Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

12 15

Design team list
by Lise Fuhr March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear all, Here is as requested the list of design teams. This will also be available on the website. We will ensure that the list continuously is updated. Best regards, Jonathan & Lise

4 3

Agenda for 3 March at 17:00 UTC (Meeting #25)
by Grace Abuhamad March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the 25th meeting on 3 March at 17:00 UTC. All action items from the last call have been completed. I've attached documents for your review before the call. Proposed Agenda for 03/03 1. Opening Remarks 2. Final Review of Design Team Method 3. Review scope of DTA and DTB and launch 4. Review Structure of CWG Proposal v2.0 5. Update on Client Committee work 6. Discuss Principles Path Forward 7. AOB 8. Closing Remarks For your information, we anticipate that the call may be shorter than two hours. Best, Grace

1 0

A liaison from the Board to CWG
by Lise Fuhr March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear All, During the meeting in Singapore the co-chairs have picked up that ICANN Board is an important stakeholder for this groups as well. We have noticed that there have been involvement from the Board in the CWG work during calls and during the actual meetings in Singapore. Because of this involvement, the fact that the board is a stakeholder and in order to ensure a continuously and open dialogue with the CWG, we find that having a liaison from the board could be helpful. Not that the liaison will have a special status within the group but serve as a link between the CWG and the ICANN board, in line with how the CCWG has a liaison from ICANN Board. Jonathan and I intend to approach the board regarding this in the beginning of next week. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise

22 57

CWG Thurs Q&A Session Response Compilation
by Berry Cobb March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

All, Please find attached the compilation of all responses to the questions posed from the CWG to the community at its session on Thursday in Singapore. This is divided into 8 sections across the 9 questions, noting that questions 4 & 5 were presented together. The responses are compiled as follows: . Transcripts of persons that spoke at the session in Singapore . Responses submitted by individuals and designated groups . Responses from ccTLDs imported from a survey submitted to them. Note, I have yet to receive the specific ccTLD for which responses are posted, and I will update the tables ASAP when I get them. For now, they are list in generic numerical form. For each response, I attempted to flag its main attributes according to the style of the question being asked. None of the attributes are tallied, but are meant to act as a quick reference to general trends of the responses. Note that the ccTLD responses of "yes" or "no" were provided in most cases from the survey that was constructed for them. All other attribute flags are my individual interpretation of the response. Please send any feedback to the list, and I can adjust the matrix accordingly. Thank you. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

2 1

Last day to RSVP! 28 confirmed!
by Grace Abuhamad March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Dear all, Today is the last day to register for the F2F meeting in Istanbul. If you are planning to attend, even if your plans are tentative, please let us know. There are 28 confirmed to date (see below for more information). Link to this Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/In-Person+Attendees Dates: 26-27 March 2015 (two full working days) Venue: Hilton İstanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center SILAHSOR CAD. NO: 42 BOMONTI-SISLI, ISTANBUL, 34381, TURKEY (see map here <http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/turkey/hilton-istanbul-bomonti-hotel-and-c onference-center-ISTBHHI/maps-directions/index.html> ) * ICANN will offer travel support to the 19 CWG members only <https://community.icann.org/x/1QrxAg> , but the meeting will be open to anyone in the CWG who wishes to attend in person (at their own expense). * The deadline for confirmation of in-person attendance is 2 March 2015. * The meeting will be webcast live through Adobe Connect and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CWG meetings to date. The meeting will be recorded and transcribed. * Alternates will be eligible for travel funding if and only if they are a current participant of the CWG and approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. * The F2F meeting is a working meeting for the CWG. Like all CWG meetings, in-person attendance is limited to CWG members and participants. Since anyone can join the CWG as a participant, if you know of someone who is interested in the work of the CWG, please encourage them to join. If you have any questions, please contact me. Members 1. Olivier Crépin-Leblond (ALAC); 2. Eduardo Diaz (ALAC); 3. Lise Fuhr (ccNSO/ccTLD); 4. Robert Guerra (SSAC); 5. Vika Mpisane (ccNSO/ccTLD); 6. Seun Ojedeji (ALAC); 7. Jonathan Robinson (GNSO); 8. Greg Shatan (GNSO); 9. Avri Doria (GNSO); 10. Erick Iriarte (ccNSO/ccTLD) 11. Donna Austin (GNSO) 12. Fatima Cambronero (ALAC) 13. Graeme Bunton (GNSO) 14. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC) 15. Paul Kane (ccNSO/ccTLD) 16. Elise Lindeberg (GAC) Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC) sends his apologies for the meeting. Participants 1. Chuck Gomes (GNSO) 2. Jordan Carter (ccNSO) 3. Chris Disspain 4. 5. Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) 6. Martin Boyle (ccNSO – member ICG) 7. Maarten Simon (ccNSO) 8. Matthew Shears (GNSO) 9. Pedro Ivo Ferraz Da Silva (GAC) 10. Markus Kummer 11. Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO) 12. Kurt Pritz – tentative 13. Boyoung Kim (GAC) From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:50 AM To: "Cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <Cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] F2F: current list of attendees Dear all, Link to this page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/In-Person+Attendees Here below is the list of confirmed members and participants * ICANN will offer travel support to the 19 CWG members only <https://community.icann.org/x/1QrxAg> , but the meeting will be open to anyone in the CWG who wishes to attend in person (at their own expense). * The deadline for confirmation of in-person attendance is 2 March 2015. It would be helpful if you could let me know even if you are considering attending, so that we can plan for adequate space. It's always easier to downsize a room. * The meeting will be webcast live through Adobe Connect and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CWG meetings to date. The meeting will be recorded and transcribed. * Alternates will be eligible for travel funding if and only if they are a current participant of the CWG and approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. * The F2F meeting is a working meeting for the CWG. Like all CWG meetings, in-person attendance is limited to CWG members and participants. Since anyone can join the CWG as a participant, if you know of someone who is interested in the work of the CWG, please encourage them to join. If you have any questions, please contact me. Members 1. Olivier Crépin-Leblond (ALAC); 2. Eduardo Diaz (ALAC); 3. Lise Fuhr (ccTLD); 4. Robert Guerra (SSAC); 5. Vika Mpisane (ccNSO); 6. Seun Ojedeji (ALAC); 7. Jonathan Robinson (GNSO); 8. Greg Shatan (GNSO); 9. Avri Doria (GNSO); 10. Erick Iriarte (ccNSO) Participants 1. Chuck Gomes (GNSO) 2. Jordan Carter (ccNSO) 3. Wolfgang Kleinwächter 4. 5. Jonne Soininen 6. 7. Rinalia Abdul Rahim 8. 9. Suzanne Woolf 10. 11. Chris Disspain 12. Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) 13. Martin Boyle (ccNSO – member ICG) 14. Maarten Simon (ccNSO) If you have any questions, please contact me. --Grace

1 0

US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition
by Greg Shatan Feb. 28, 2015

Feb. 28, 2015

All: The US Senate held a hearing on the Department of Commerce's 2016 Budget (2016 commences October 1, 2015). A transcription was just published, and I've excerpted (as is) the Senators' questions and Secy. Pritzker's answers relevant to the IANA Transition -- see below. (FYI, much more time was spent on fishing, the paper industry and weather forecasting than on IANA) Greg SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY HOLDS A HEARING ON THE FY2016 FUNDING REQUEST AND BUDGET JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT February 26, 2015 Thursday EVENT DATE: February 26, 2015 TYPE: COMMITTEE HEARING LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C. COMMITTEE: SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES SPEAKER: SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, CHAIRMAN WITNESSES: SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, R-ALA. CHAIRMAN WITNESSES: PENNY PRITZKER, SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE … SHELBY: Senator Langford. LANGFORD: Thank you. Thanks for being here as well. PRITZKER: Thank you. LANGFORD: I'm grateful to be able to have the conversation. I want to talk a little bit about where we stand with ICAN (inaudible) conversation and DNA. So my questions--I'm sorry, DNS, not DNA. DNA would be fun to talk about as well, by the way, if you want to talk about that. The budget request has a note in it that I thought was interesting. It says FY 2016 NTIA will continue to develop, implement and advocate policies positioned in the U.S. to meet growing complexities and political challenges related to internet governance and the domain-named system. Tell me the status of where you are headed on this. And obviously Congress has spoken back on it and is a little hesitant. So specifically, while you're talking about the status on it, how are you balancing the foreign policy objectives with United States commerce? And I mean commerce as a whole of our business world and how dependent we really are on this internet. PRITZKER: Well, let me start by saying our NTIA role is stewardship of the internet. And so moving--our goal has been to continue to move ICAN to a multi-stakeholder model. And, in fact, we deal directly with ICAN and the leadership of ICAN and their CEO is coming in tomorrow. LANGFORD: Can I interrupt for just a second? The question there is the why? And I think it's the foreign policy question. PRITZKER: Why? LANGFORD: Why try to move that outside of our stewardship? Has it been a problem that we've been the steward with it? Why remove American stewardship from the internet? PRITZKER: Well, the challenge and we--we're not giving up our stewardship of the internet. But the challenge that we face with the ICAN-IANA transition is this is--and, first of all, we're not going to give up our position of overseeing the IANA domain name situation unless we can ourselves there's a multi-stakeholder process and it's not going to be jeopardized, that there's going to stability and resiliency and security in the domain name system and that it meets the needs of global customers, and it remains that the internet will remain free and open. The challenge we face in our role is the perception of our goal in the global environment. There is a lot of pressure, as you said, from foreign governments to, in essence, take over control of the internet and try and create places where governments are in control of what's happening with the internet. We think that is the wrong direction to go, and therefore we feel we're really an oversight. ICAN is actually performing the IANA functions. And so our goal is that ICAN continue to perform those functions, but the appearance of our engagement creates this notion that the U.S. is a government in control and that's against where we ultimately--we want to be able to argue with the rest of the world. That's not what we want to see for the internet. LANGFORD: Right. I understand. And the skepticism is when we release the first generation, there may be some good oversight of that. And then what happens five years from now, etc.? So what happens with China and Russia? I just want to be able to express some continuing skepticism. PRITZKER: Senator, I share your concern about that. And one of the criteria that I've said is we've asked for ICAN to explain to us how they're going to be accountable to a multi-stakeholder process and there cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of ICAN. LANGFORD: Correct, and I would affirm that. … KUNTZ: Let me ask about a very different field for a moment, if I might, which is ICAN. When I was in the private sector, I did some work around web domains and website acquisition and control. We had a trademark, the company I was in, that had been inappropriately taken over as a web domain by a company with no relationship to it, and I got involved in this. This was a long time ago and I was struck at how at that point NTIA was playing a critical role in oversight of ICAN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which I think is widely known to the small community of people who pay a lot of attention to this. And I'm frankly very concerned that there is a proposal to transition ICAN completely away from the Commerce Department oversight and management, and I just want to make sure that ICAN is really prepared to make that transition and will have adopted some core key principles about protection from government capture, budgetary restraint and a separation of functions, and this is something I wrote to you about back in December and co-sponsored a resolution that passed in the Senate calling for these reforms before there is any transition. I just wanted to make sure that I had your sense of whether you thought these reforms were important to complete before there was any movement towards it. PRITZKER: Well, Senator, I share your concern. I think the transition at the IANA transition is one that's important because there are down sides for our engagement there. Having said that, making sure that we don't--that ICAN can responsibly continue to carry out that function, making sure that it is multi-stakeholder managed and driven, making sure it meets the needs of customers and in a timely and efficient manner, and that we remain a free and open internet. All of those are priorities. We are awaiting proposals. We're not in any rush. We're working very carefully with ICAN, but we're waiting for proposals as to how they can make sure they would satisfy all those performance requirements and also proposals for how they will improve the accountability of ICAN so that there cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of the board of ICAN. Copyright 2015 CQ Transcriptions, LLC All Rights Reserved CQ Transcriptions

2 3

Step-by-Step Process for a CWG Design Team
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 27, 2015

Feb. 27, 2015

All, Following on from yesterday's call, please see attached for a Step-by-Step Process for a CWG Design Team. Thank-you. Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr

1 0

F2F: current list of attendees
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 27, 2015

Feb. 27, 2015

Dear all, Link to this page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/In-Person+Attendees Here below is the list of confirmed members and participants * ICANN will offer travel support to the 19 CWG members only <https://community.icann.org/x/1QrxAg> , but the meeting will be open to anyone in the CWG who wishes to attend in person (at their own expense). * The deadline for confirmation of in-person attendance is 2 March 2015. It would be helpful if you could let me know even if you are considering attending, so that we can plan for adequate space. It's always easier to downsize a room. * The meeting will be webcast live through Adobe Connect and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CWG meetings to date. The meeting will be recorded and transcribed. * Alternates will be eligible for travel funding if and only if they are a current participant of the CWG and approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. * The F2F meeting is a working meeting for the CWG. Like all CWG meetings, in-person attendance is limited to CWG members and participants. Since anyone can join the CWG as a participant, if you know of someone who is interested in the work of the CWG, please encourage them to join. If you have any questions, please contact me. Members 1. Olivier Crépin-Leblond (ALAC); 2. Eduardo Diaz (ALAC); 3. Lise Fuhr (ccTLD); 4. Robert Guerra (SSAC); 5. Vika Mpisane (ccNSO); 6. Seun Ojedeji (ALAC); 7. Jonathan Robinson (GNSO); 8. Greg Shatan (GNSO); 9. Avri Doria (GNSO); 10. Erick Iriarte (ccNSO) Participants 1. Chuck Gomes (GNSO) 2. Jordan Carter (ccNSO) 3. Wolfgang Kleinwächter 4. 5. Jonne Soininen 6. 7. Rinalia Abdul Rahim 8. 9. Suzanne Woolf 10. 11. Chris Disspain 12. Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO) 13. Martin Boyle (ccNSO member ICG) 14. Maarten Simon (ccNSO) If you have any questions, please contact me. --Grace

2 2

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #24 26 FEB
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #24 on 26 February are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889890 Action Items Action item: CWG to review draft proposal v2.0. Action item: Need to get scope in writing for all DT as well as membership which is to be shared with the full CWG. Action item: Chairs to revise design team process proposal based on feedback received ensuring that these are lightweight and do not create unnecessary bureaucracy Action item: Develop list of all DT proposed and templates submitted. Action item: Chairs to confirm during next meeting which DT are active and which ones are in the funnel Action item: CWG encouraged to review completed version of discussion document feedback tool after it is shared on the mailing list Action item: any input to the client committee to be shared with the mailing list. Action item: reminder, confirmations for in person attendance to F2F meeting is needed by Monday, 2 March. Notes Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect room. 1. Opening Remarks Objective is to: * Developing a functional, implementable and complete plan * A focus on the functional requirements of any part of the plan Request to add discussion of ICG meeting under AOB concerning level of implementation detail needed, as well as Larry Strickling's comments in this regard during the hearing. 2. Draft Proposal & Design Teams - Review of Draft Proposal See V2.0 circulated to the mailing list. In a form to be submitted to the ICG as a response to the RFP, mirroring the format of other proposals submitted to date. To be used as a map for future work of the CWG on the path to a final proposal. Action item: CWG to review draft proposal v2.0. - Design Teams Updated version circulated on 26/2. This version includes a proposed process life cycle of a design team. Co-chairs closely involved in the review and sign-off of each proposal to ensure co-ordination and organization of the work. Design team's work to be incorporated eventually in the draft proposal. All work of design teams will first come back to the full CWG for review and discussion. Design teams need to consider work that has already been undertaken. Participation can also be from individuals that are currently not members or participants of the CWG. To be qualified to join a design team, candidates must be committed and have relevant expertise. DT lead to be a member/participant of the CWG to ensure co-ordination with work that has already been carried out. Regular updates to be provided by the DT to the full CWG. Candidates to join a DT are expected to express their interest by writing to the DT lead as well as the full CWG, providing their statement of interest as well as qualification for the design team. Board and/or staff participation are not precluded. Chairs review of candidates and potential limitation of numbers is to ensure balance and ability to be able to move forward quickly. Ideally an example of a completed template would be shared so that it is easier to assess the level of detail that is required / expected. Further information is available at <https://community.icann.org/x/pAknAw> https://community.icann.org/x/pAknAw SLA Design Team (Lead: Paul Kane) Early days, trying to get DT going. Three volunteers with operational experience have been put forward by the RySG. Similarly three volunteers are expected from the ccTLD community. In addition, a member from SSAC has been identified. DT to review and describe current function, including measuring metric. Once that document is completed it will be shared with the broader group to ensure that nothing is missed. Consult with IANA staff concerning what is currently provided in performance reports and ensure that timings are relevant. Identify the escalation path in case of non-compliance. IAP Design Team (Lead: Alan MacGillivray) Not yet submitted a proposal, expected later today CCWG looking at appeal and redress, DT work needs to be complementary to that effort. CCWG will not deal with the issue of ccTLD delegation / re-delegation, so this may be the initial focus of the DT; what are the particular needs of the ccTLD community for an appeals mechanism. CSC Design Team (Lead: Donna Austin - tentatively) Other DT for which template needs to be developed. Build up pipeline of other potential DT. Develop list of those DT templates that have already been submitted. Action item: Need to get scope in writing for all DT as well as membership which is to be shared with the full CWG. Develop list of all DT proposed and templates submitted. Chairs to confirm during next meeting which DT are active and which ones are in the funnel 3. Discussion Document Feedback Discussion document was shared with the community prior in Singapore which included a number of questions which were discussed during the Q & A session in Singapore and for which input has been submitted from a number of groups to date. This input is being compiled into one document for review by the CWG. The completed version is expected to be shared with the mailing list later today. Action item: CWG encouraged to review completed version after it is shared on the mailing list 5. AOB Legal Advice Update * Update provided by Greg to the mailing list earlier this week. Client committee meeting with the 3 candidate firms in the next couple of days. Results of those meetings will be shared with the CWG. Advice is expected to be an iterative and collaborative process. Pieces of such advice would hopefully be received within a week of formally engaging the firm, which may happen within a week or so. To consider how to most effectively engage with the firm and CWG. Action item: any input to the client committee to be shared with the mailing list. Proposal detail ref. ICG / DC hearings * No clarity from ICG call on how much detail is needed / required. Remarks from Larry Strickling may need to be reviewed in this contexts and further clarification sought from the ICG. Also ensure that expectations of SO/ACs are met as proposal will first need to be considered by the chartering organizations. SSAC 69 * Outstanding action item from Singapore; small group to review this document. * Consider a design team to ensure that proposal is consistent with SSAC 69. Next Meeting: Tuesday 3 March 17:00 - 19:00 UTC CWG IANA MEETINGS CALENDAR: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings

3 2