Dear All,

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

Action item: Everyone encouraged to provide input to the latest version of the MRT structural analysis (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1POnrfwYbviniyUC_vr4pGRZ-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M2yk/edit?usp=sharing - Please use the "Suggest" mode, rather than the "Edit" mode, so that your changes show up in "track changes" style, along with a marginal comment box)

Action item: Forward GAC letter concerning principles (Lise)

Action item: Review comments received during public comment forum (all)

Action item: Provide input to public comment forum by 22 December (all)

Action item: Participate in the next meeting of the CWG on 30 December at 14.00 UTC (all)

Attached you will find the chat transcript of today’s meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

Notes 18 December:

Status Updates

Only updates from sub-group 3, 4 and 5 during today's meeting
RFP 3 is continuing its meetings as well as discussions on the mailing list, reviewing structural analysis of the MRT (see google doc). Next call is scheduled for Friday 19 December. CSC structural analysis document to be posted shortly.

RFP 5 met for the second time this week. Group has discussed how to draft (form and structure) of text. Two layer approach - high level tabular approach to confirm whether criteria have been met as well as explanatory language. Next meeting on 30 December.
RFP 4 also met earlier this week. Initial structure for work was presented and discussed, which includes three work streams (1 - review of technical requirements, 2 - timeline, 3 - key risks / testing). Next meeting scheduled for 23 December. Participation was limited in the last meeting so some work has been pushed out to the mailing list.

Presentation and Review of Work Plan (between now and 11 January)

Review of proposed meetings in December and January
Reading and review week from 22 Dec-29 Dec - will allow staff to develop a summary of the comments received. Following that, a small group of CWG volunteers will prepare a draft analysis of the comments received for CWG review.

Understand the principle of separability

See also (draft) principles developed by the CWG
Aim to finalize principles by 8 January meeting (continue conversations on the mailing list, including comments received from the GAC)
Separability is included as a principle in this draft and has not been challenged by anyone to date
ALAC is of the view that it should not be a principle or core around which the proposal is built - although no objections were received in relation to the draft principles. ALAC is of the view that the same net effect can be achieved without having separability as the cornerstone of the proposal.
How is this separability (in case of dooms-day scenario) achieved in the ALAC proposal?
Separability has been part of the system from the start - why change it now? How do you ensure accountability if you do not have the ability to change the contract? ALAC is of the view that there are other ways to achieve this than a contract, including additional accountability mechansisms.
Is disagreement around how separability is built in, not necessarily around the principle itself? Yes, correct.
Agreement on separability as a principle - no agreement yet on how to implement it though
Consider developing criteria for separability

Due consideration of alternative proposal (not to exclude other proposals)

Brief overview of ALAC proposal - some of the details are left to the Acccountability CCWG as the solution is internal to ICANN (see also diagrams shared during the meeting)
Why is responsibility for accountability mechanisms deferred to CCWG while CWG charter makes clear that accountability relating to the IANA function is within scope of the CWG?
Main issue is with Contract Co. function.
Divestiture is solution should separabilty become necessary - who would order such divestiture would need to be further fleshed out (for example, membership organization), what would be the trigger point?
Consider whether RFP 4 should test the ALAC proposal? Need to wait and see what other public comments are received.