Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #26 - 05 March are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890437 Action Items: Action (Chairs): Will get back to group with DT list and priorities Action (Elise/GAC): Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team Action (Martin): Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin Action (Paul): Paul to review template to ensure scope aligns with DT's work. Action (Martin): Martin to make modifications as discussed and recirculate draft for CWG review. Notes: Roll call (will be taken from Adobe Connect) Not on Adobe Connect: Steve Crocker, Theresa Swinehart 1. Opening Remarks Critical point - have started working with the new approach using design teams. Everyone encouraged to review materials that are shared and provide constructive feedback. Results of the design team will be shared with the full CWG for review and approval - keeping in mind that this will needs to be inserted into the draft transition proposal. Review of outstanding action items: Action (Chairs): Will get back to group with DT list and priorities Action (Elise/GAC): Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team Action (Donna): CSC Scope document produced before next meeting (COMPLETED) - to be discussed during today's meeting Action (Martin): Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin - to be discussed during today's meeting 2. Update from DT-A (Paul Kane) No substantial updates compared to Tuesday's meeting. Baseline of work was presented during Tuesday's meeting and DT will work from there. DT hopes to share process flow charts early next week. Communications will occur on the publicly archived mailing list. Request to clarify that the DT's scope is to a) porting across existing service level obligations to the post-transition environment; b) creating the possibility of reviewing and changing them in future but not c) reviewing and updating the substantive content. Intent is to use real world statics as the baseline for SLEs. Item b) is currently not on the list, but is something that has been raised before. DT will first develop process flow and real-world performance (target date - early next week), followed by proposed escalation path in relation to SLE (which is different from periodic review which may be handled by CSC). Item b) could follow after these items have been dealt with. No response to c) yet, in principle not on the agenda, but it could arise. Jay Daly and Jeff Eckhaus are working on the process flow, while Paul is focused on the statistical analysis for now. Question: Is the escalation path uniform irrespective of the sensitivity and exigency of the Registry's problem ? consider an extreme situation that takes a Registry offline. Is there a hotline path? Answer: Yes, this already exists and is likely to continue. Action: Paul to review template to ensure scope aligns with DT's work. 3. Update from DT-B (Allan MacGillivray) Revised template circulated to address comments received - title reflects the intent of the DT. Objective is to determine whether there is sufficient support in the ccTLD community for a possible appeal mechanism for ccTLD delegations and redelegations. What is the expected deliverable? Team still needs to get together to discuss. The DT expects to take a survey of the ccTLD community. Timing will depend on how quickly the survey can be put together while also allowing sufficient time for responses. Should there be support for a limited appeals mechanism, the DT could then consider what the next steps should be. Very narrow focus objective - no link with FOI. Would bringing forward a number of appeal mechanism designs for feedback produce more results? This is to be further discussed by the DT, but Allan would be supportive of that approach. 4. Review of Scope Document DT-C (Donna Austin) See document shared on the mailing list. Structured with previous discussions on CSC in mind, knowing that certain elements such as MRT, internal/external will be addressed at a later stage. Will need to factor in work that is being undertaken by SLE DT. There was a question on the list whether a liaison should be added - this is probably already covered by the expertise currently identified. In relation to 'h' is to consider, no agreement at this stage whether it should or shouldn't be involved in this role. 5. Review & Finalize CWG Principles Document (Martin Boyle) Revised version circulated yesterday proposing a way forward on outstanding items. Proposal to remove comments / redlines on issues that have not received further input / concerns and focus on remaining issues as outlined in email. 7-ii - is compromise language acceptable? Needs further work based on comments on the mailing list, but start from the suggested compromise language. 5-ii - updated language shared on the mailing list. Update to be made to document. 5-iii - bracketed language to be deleted. Clarify IANA Functions Operator - in other contexts this has meant ICANN (needs to be checked in whole document to ensure consistency). 5-iv - new footnote. Avri has suggested a modification on the list - but not clear what ICANN consensus is, but comment will be included in revised version to allow for further discussion. May need to clarify that 'consensus' is not any particular definition of consensus as different groups have different definitions. 5-vi - see comment on the list from Maarten Simon. 6 - ii - to be retained or not? Proposal to delete this part. Automation of IANA functions should not be a principle in relation to the transition. 7 - i - see edits from Maarten Simon. No objections. 10 - see language proposed by Stephanie. Consider using 'should'. Add 'should' to next version. 8.11 - to be taken off-line with Erick. Action (Martin): Martin to make modifications as discussed and recirculate draft for CWG review. 6. Update on Client Committee (Greg Shatan) See also updated provided on Tuesday. Client committee has received proposed engagement letter from frontrunner which reflects unique circumstances of this relationship. Is still work in progress. Considering rules of engagement - a number of proposed working methods are contained in the engagement letter. Still waiting for permission from one of the firm to share name. Once that has been received, the names of all three firms will be received. Hope to engage firm by end of this week or early next week. Advice expected to be result of discussions, not just answers to written questions. How is the discussion with the law firm expected to be managed? Rules of engagement will be a part of this. Client committee expected to directly interface with lawyers, which may require revisiting the membership of the client committee. Move to more typical working method such as publicly archived mailing list and recorded meetings so that there is a public record. Expected to have interim deliverables that are shared with the full CWG. Will lawyers be in Istanbul? Is under consideration, but cost-benefit analysis will need to be made. 7. AOB No items 8. Closing remarks & Review of Action Items Action (Chairs): Will get back to group with DT list and priorities Action (Elise/GAC): Would like an additional GAC person for IAP Team Action (Martin): Paul and Elise solve the last issue with Martin Action (Paul): Paul to review template to ensure scope aligns with DT's work. Action (Martin): Martin to make modifications as discussed and recirculate draft for CWG review.
