Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the RFP3B call on 23 January at 14:00 UTC are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51417872 Notes 23/01: 1. Welcome Roll call : Audio only Eduardo Diaz, Lise Fuhr 2. Need for 'Discussion Document' for Singapore * Singapore meeting offers opportunity to engage with community; * Goal is to prepare discussion document for Singapore * At end of meeting decission what goes in as "internal draft proposal * BT: Assemble document of "what is current state of play" includes * interaction of CWG * Status of draft Interim proposal * Public comment and analysis * Key questions * Alternative proposal First draft shared, starting point To be completed before Singapore, basis for slide deck etc. * * AM: send out mock-up to list * No comments 3. Review of 'Discussion Document' draft based on auDA proposal Paul Szyndler: Not able to respond to legal questions. It is presneted as potential solution. Starting to from back to front. Starting wiht non-contentious elements IAP: considered non-contentious CSC: only standing committee, other elements only activated when required Concept Guardian: is concept aligned with"trust" similar kind of function of MRT ICANN would be declare itself trustee Beneficiaries: customers of IANA Implicit assumption: it is an internal to ICANN model, in lign with purpose of this sub-group. Key element: agree, with IAP and CSC, Guardian similar to MRT Suggestion to take questions: * What is apex/pinnacle point: trust? * Chat question: dos it this reflects the first "internal to ICANN" proposal that largely came from ALAC - is this the case? Focus on Auda proposal first Alan Greenberg (AG)( ALaC): looking for minimal proposal. At this stage no ALAC position, but is abasis for furhter discussion adn possible evolution CLO: Evolve to RFP 3B proposal, need to be acceptable if now wedded to Contract Co, For those Request and needs external legal advise, similar as for "Contract Co" proposal. Viable basis for 3B proposal. Fast track this proposal, to evolve AM: Auda or LAC proposal is short hand for developing "internal proposal" Staffan Jonson: Optimistic about proposal, some issues, what is impact of declaration of trustee, how does separation work? AG: Interesting to understand to what extend Auda prop. is more acceptable then ALAC prop. AM: Goal is to understand this proposal Greg Shatan: Notes Trust very specific area of law: NTIA claim to transfer to MS community. If transfered to ICANN how does this relate to need to transfer to MS? Guardian is only formed when needed: newly formed, or roster? Donna Austin: IAP and CSC and Guardian are all similar to what has been discussed in RFP 3. If that is the case, leave in RFP 3. and focus in RFP 3B on trust and relation involved? Suggestion supported by fair number of attendants AG: tends to agree with DA. Focus on understanding trustee and trust relation, but notes substantial differnece based on starting concept AM: starting from Frankfurt, still does not understand what goes into "trust", what would trust holds? PS: Agrees not to go into other elements at this stage and focus on core difference. In developing proposal: what is core of IANA Function and what is transferred. ICANN could be in position that it makes a unulateral statement of trust. This statement delineates what is in "trust". Suggest to focus on model, i.e. separation of IANA Function. Broad concept to ensure role of community vis-a vis Trustee/ICANN. Facilitate discussion on principle. Issues around particpation AM: Issue to understand what goes into the "trust" How would mechanics work? PS: NTIA would approve of unilateral declaration by ICANN of holding IAN Function in trust. ICANN would not hold the IANA Function. The functions would be identified in the statement of "trust" and then be bound to the community. statement could include or exclude anything community wants to. AM: notes Avri s remark on IETF trust CLO: Individual experience determine view on model. Hence need for rigorous legal advise. Internal solution through "trust" and "guardian" function, would trigger Review. There is a lot in model that at arms-length Review etc, could be triggered. AM: it is given the remit is to develop an internal solution and develop its mechanics Grag Shatan: CLO refers to guardian as an entity, but not as a legal entity. What if ICANN goes "rogue" and guardian is incorporated, how can Guardian take action? Trustee is not powered any decision, however role of trustee is to maintain "trust" , How does this difference be overcome. PS: Starting point trustee is not empowered to make changes to trust. ICANN by making statement, it can not empower itself . If ICANN goes "rogue' beneficiaries or guardians can move "trust" somewhere else. AM: What would happen in mechanical sense if ICANN as "trustee" would not recognize decision? PS. ICANN holds assets in trust, it would not empower them to take any decision on the asset. various mechanisms to change trustee. Mechanism through escalation path described in paper. Key principle ICANN would not be empowered to do anything, and hence would have no control. DA: What does "trust" hold. Structural changes needed. to clear delineate IANA Function, includes budget , own legal advise, etc. AG: what is it in the 'trust" similar question needs to be asked for " interim proposal". It is unclear what will be confereed upon, what will be tranfered? This question needs to be asked for all proposals. CWG does not know what is transferred? AM: in community not enough discussion about " Verisign root zom=ne maintainer contract". Greg Shatan: Model may work if asset is bank account.. IANA function is not clearly defined asset. Does this require internal separation to clearly delineate 'asset"? CLO: Guardina would be same. Mechanistic aspects happens in same way as NTIA does it currently. All models needs to be tested, and made robust. Greg Shatan: USG many resources at hand. Guardian does not wield any sticks. CLO: Model should be developed properly, with proper safeguards and safeguards AG: All mechanisms rely on enforcement in court, contract and Contract Co. as well internal model. Move forward with assumption, that all solutions need to be tested. AM: unfortunately not legal advice before moving forward. Would PS in the position to elaborate on questions asked today. PS: Could provide some additional clarifications, but providing fully fleshed out proposal in short term, that was worked in by CWG over last months will not work. CLO suggestion: how much of strawman has merit for legal advise? Opinion, sufficient basis for further discussion and seeking legal advise. AM: Making sure that it can be socialized Greg Shatan: How can ICANN be forced to hand over set of activities: fundamental issues, enhancing accountability mechanisms. Important in both proposals: ability to hold board accountability for its decision. AM: simpler ways to achieve what needs to be done. Question to DA: this option to propose or develop other DA: which structural changes would be required? For example build walls around IANA Function.. This discussion has never been had in CWG. Find tangibles AM: PS asked to elaborate more around this?There are simpler ways, around board resolutions and Bylaw changes? PS asked to provide elaboration AM has own ideas, focused around Board resolution and Bylaw changes. Challenge is to write some pages on internal pages. CLO: Will we have white board in ADOBE, and matrix to compare the similarities and differences, including the AM model. No problem with putting various options to community AM: Runs over matrix as presented in room. AG: Is this alternative to original Auda and ALAC proposal? The rationale for Auda, it allows for delineation and easy separation to try appease those who strongly support separation. PS: Key point Auda's initial proposal, suggested something like a "golden bylaw' informally received feed-back that such a model would be problematic, hence the evolution to "trust model" . What is needed is legal advise. AM: measure of agreement to see what he can do, AM see what he can do to elaborate. preferably in coordination. AM: need for two more meetings 4. Summation and Next Steps 5. Timing of Next Meetings AM: circulation of discussion paper early February Next RFP 3B Meetings: * Tuesday 27 January 14.00 UTC * Thursday 29 January 21.00 UTC 6. AOB --None
