Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 63 on 20 August 2015 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/xoNCAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities. Action: Review and then clarify position on "approve or veto" issue for the CCWG-Acct Action (all): Review section 7.1 of the CCWG proposal Action: Client Committee will meet and instruct Sidley on Bylaws drafting process based on coordination with CCWG-Acct Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Need a position on IANA IPR before the close of the ICG Public Comment * Need to ensure that the CCWG-Acct proposal is in line with the CWG requirements. Part of this involves the Bylaws matrix that Sidley has prepared. * The SLE/SLAs for the names community also need to be finalized. 2. IANA IPR Discussion * In BA, there was some concern over the draft text in the CWG proposal -- the text appeared to be in conflict with the other communities. We issued a statement to clarify that the text was draft only. We intended to deal with IPR further in implementation. * Received a memo on IPR issues from Sidley on 4 August. * Jonathan and Lise held coordination call with the Chairs of the other communities. These were productive and helpful. * ICANN Board issued a statement on Saturday 15 August. * On Monday, Chairs held another coordination call and followed up with a note to the CWG-Stewardship * ICG Chairs and CRISP Chairs have responded positively on the mailing list and clarified questions/issues where needed. * Agreement on a neutral/independent trust and the communities can focus on requirements for this trust during implementation. * Olivier Crepin Leblond clarified that the At-Large Working Group on IANA Transition is in agreement with the concept of the independent trust (although they would have preferred that ICANN continue to hold these marks). * Greg Shatan agrees with proposed position * Next step: communicate this position to the ICG through the Public Comment and to the other communities involved. * Martin Boyle noted that the IFO will need to have operational control of the IANA.ORG and associated domain names. This is a requirement that needs to be clarified in the agreement. Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities. In future (likely after submission of ICG Proposal to NTIA): * CWG to focus on clarifying requirements/criteria for the independent/neutral trust * Work with other communities during implementation to make sure requirements/criteria are met. 3. Bylaws Matrix Sidley produced a Bylaws Matrix on 11 August. Drafted from the CWG perspective (even though counsel is also working with the CCWG) PTI Governance Do we need all governance aspects to be fundamental bylaws? These are important bylaws but it is possible that not all need to be fundamental. If there were even a need to change the membership of PTI, this could be a decision not just by ICANN but also by the Community Mechanism. Sharon notes that, for drafting purposes, the decision of whether bylaws are standard or fundamental is not necessary. ICANN Budget and IANA Budget The CWG had "approve or veto" but the CCWG has agreed to a veto process. The CWG needs to confirm that this veto is workable. Lise confirmed that based on the mailing list discussions, the CWG has confirmed that the veto power is workable. Action: Review and then clarify position on "approve or veto" issue for the CCWG-Acct Action (all): Review section 7.1 of the CCWG proposal IANA Functions Contract No questions or comments. Community Empowerment Mechanisms The CCWG's current proposal is consistent with CWG requirements Customer Standing Committee (CSC) No questions or comments IANA Problem Resolution Process No questions or comments IANA Function Review (IFR) No questions or comments Separation Process No questions or comments Appeals Mechanism Question from Allan MacGillivray: We clearly state in the CWG proposal (see page 21 under 'Appeal Mechanism' that the 'direct customers of IANA need to have access to an Independent Review Panel'. My reading of the of the CCWG proposal (see page 39 for example) is that the proposed 'independent review process' will apply only in respect of ICANN board and staff decisions. If correct, how do we ensure that PTI decisions are also reviewable. Does this need to be built into PTI's bylaws? Can a registry use the appeals mechanism to resolve an issue? Yes, The CWG report cleary indicates that individual problems and issues be reviewable. The CWG report says this: "Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions (emphasis added). For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition." The ccTLDs (and the CWG report) have made clear that the IRP process not apply to delegation/redelegation issues. However, the CCWG proposal currently also applies that exemption to the Reconsideration process as well. Do the CWG and ccTLDs want delegation and redelegation issues to be included in the Reconsideration process or not? Josh Hofheimer (Sidley) suggests that this can be resolved through detailed drafting in implementation in PTI [Root Zone Management] No questions or comments Fundamental Bylaws No questions or comments Coordination with CCWG-Accountability Can the Client Committee proceed to instruct the legal counsel to move forward with Bylaws drafting? --> No objection Action: Client Committee will meet and instruct Sidley on Bylaws drafting process based on coordination with CCWG-Acct 4. SLEWG Update * The SLEWG created a drafting subgroup on 21 May. This group consisted of Kim Davies (ICANN-IANA) and Adam Smith (Specialist on SLAs from CDNS). Bernie Turcotte provided facilitation and staff support. * There have been over 20 revisions and drafts. * The SLEWG held two calls this week to agree of outstanding issues (queue-jumping and non-discriminatory practice) and finalize the draft. * There will be another call next week to review the draft before submission to the CWG. * After CWG agreements, the document will go back to the IANA department for budget and implementation plan (with a time period for testing). This will allow for proven and tested SLEs to be implemented as part of the transition. 5. AOB Sidley to help with CWG submission to the CCWG Public Comment.
