Dear All,

Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. As a reminder:

Everyone is requested to contribute to questions that would need to be called out as part of the public comment forum. Deadline for all input on the questions & draft proposal - no later than Saturday 29 November at 12.00 UTC. Co-chairs will have the authority to take that input and formulate the questions and issues that CWG wants input on. (for your convenience, you’ll find the latest version of the draft proposal attached)

Best regards,

Marika

Notes 27/11:

Welcome & roll call

Roll call will be taken from Adobe Connect

Review of F2F meeting

Good representation and participation both from members as well as participants (over 40 participants)
Substantial progress made, including framework for responding to RFP3
Chairs statement published after the meeting to communicate outcome of meeting more broadly

Update from RFP4

First call earlier this week on RFP4 - awaiting outcome of RFP3
Considering how to move forward on items 1 and 2 which may be less dependent on RFP3
Next call scheduled for Friday 28 November at 13.00 UTC.
What is expected from RFP4 as part of the publication of the draft proposal on 1 December?

Review Draft Proposal

Section 3 Comments

ALAC to provide written comments - concerns regarding jurisdication of contracting entity (problematic to find one); capture of whole process; costs - how is this entity going to be funded, especially if ICANN shouldn't be part of the picture; integration problems with other proposals; who convenes PRT, prevent capture; likelihood of acceptance by NTIA. Basically some of the components have questions that do not have obvious answers - several of these together may question the overall proposal.
Consider calling out some of these questions out as part of the public comment forum. For example, jurisdiction of contracting authority; formation of PRT; stress test idea - are there any items in the structures that leave it open for capture;
Not useful to raise acceptability to the NTIA unless it relates to the criteria set by the NTIA.
Focus on acceptance by naming community - ICG will worry about how it fits together with other proposals.
How will contracting entity take action if it has no staff? Actions could be delegated to PRT or administrator / secretariat function for contracting entity? Principle is that PRT provides oversight and direction to Contracting Entity.
Paper is a starting point - there are issues that will need to be addressed, but having a document will allow for soliciting input.
Focus should be on finding solutions for issues identified, not just calling issues out. Work from within the group, not from the outside. Need to be part of the dialogue.
Contracting entity questions: jurisdiction, staffing to carry out its responsibilities, who will be paying for it, is it a viable plan? PRT would be responsible for taking actions. Regarding funding, various models could be explored.
Contracting entity - formal legal authority. Created with very limited mandate. In articles and bylaws it would have prohibition against changing bylaws unless certain steps are taken that involve the PRT/multistakeholder community.
Consider opening different email threads on questions identified
Need some independent legal contracting expertise to provide input - should be started now. How can indepenent legal advice be obtained and funded?
Accountability - chairs will meet with co-chairs of the accountability CWG to discuss linkage and commence co-ordination between two groups.
Approval function - may no longer be necessary. Has the proposal thought the issue through, also per the discussions on the mailing list. May be another issue to be called out as part of the public comment forum.
Proposed modifications to the document as well as questions that need to be called out as part of the public comment forum - objective of today's conversation.
Need to agree on sign-off moment for chairs to publish document
Flag open issues / questions - either in document or as part of public comment forum.
Transition implications could be an other area to solicit input on.
Is it possible to flesh out composition of PDT and relationship to customer standing committee as part of draft proposal? See also comments from Avri on the mailing list. Could be convened on short notice if issue arises, but probably formally convenes once a year? Would need to define number of seats, not necessarily which individuals would occcupy those seats, but will need to be multistakeholder. Term 'periodic' may be misleading as PRT is expected to be reactive between formal review moments.
CSC focused on direct customers, possibly with a couple of additional experts /liaisons (non-registry per se, but experts in technical / operational issues that may occur in the execution of the IANA functions). Scope and deliniation between CSC and PRT should be further defined.
Guide public comments on preferred way these should come back to facilitate review by CWG.
Need to define who has standing to appeal to independents appeals panel.
Monitoring of how policy is implemented - how is that done?
Agreement to keep on moving on the current timetable, although consideration will need to be given with regards to the linkage with the accountability work.

Action item: contribute to questions that would need to be called out as part of the public comment forum. Deadline for all input on the questions & document - no later than Saturday 12.00 UTC. Co-chairs will have the authority to take that input and formulate the questions and issues that CWG wants input on.

Webinars

Co-chairs leading / presenting, supported by RFP Leads
Will be scheduled for:
3 December from 7:00 – 8:30 UTC
4 December from 12:30 – 14:00 UTC
4 December from 16:00 – 17:30 UTC
All CWG members and participants encouraged to participate and promote webinars