Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA High Intensity Meeting, Session 6 - 29 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%2355
Kind regards,
Brenda
Action: DTs aim to finalize responses to PC and documents/edits to draft proposal by Monday 1 June at 12:00 UTC
Action: Staff to provide updated draft for sections iv, v, vi in draft to be circulated for Tuesday's call (2 June)
Overall Timeline / Milestones
· 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting
· 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting – review final proposal (sign-off?)
· 8 June - submission to SO/ACs
· 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting – Next steps, communication, other issues
· W/C 8 June – Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June?
· 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires
Notes:
Eduardo Diaz on audio only
1. Recap & Continuation of Prior Meeting
· Worked with outputs from DT-N and DT-SR/X
IFRT
· Agreement to add ccNSO member to IFRT
· Alternates -- 2 options: members could each have alternates (doubling the size) OR member could name alternates in case of substitution
· These groups are open and transparent processes so anyone can observe proceedings
· Clarification: No additional gTLD representation
S[C]WG
· Geographic diversity where possible
· Skillset recommendations
· Expansion proposition: 3 gTLD registries & 3 ccTLD registries (one additional ccTLD registry and one additional gTLD registry). The registries must ensure georgraphic diversity.
· This group is also open and transparent so anyone can observe proceedings
· Recognising that at the time the SWG will be invoked this will be at the end of a substantial process. As such, the SWG is expected to move will be required to move forward with expediency and due diligence.
Separation Costs
· Transition costs and ongoing operation costs
· Sufficient portion of registry fees would be dedicated to the IANA services which would carry over should there be to the new operator should there be a separation, but this should not result in an increase in fees. May need to be evaluated periodically to assess whether there have been changes in budget.
· ICANN maintains responsibility for funding of the IANA functions services whether in house or not (for any future state of the IANA functions)
Key points on Separation Costs
· 1. in the event of a future transition, ICANN would fund transition
· 2. ICANN is responsible for ongoing funding of IANA operation & services
· 3. no raise in fees directly associated with that
2. Design Teams
Action: DTs aim to finalize responses to PC and documents/edits to draft proposal by Monday 1 June at 12:00 UTC
3. Outstanding Sections
Action: Staff to provide updated draft for sections iv, v, vi in draft to be circulated for Tuesday's call (2 June)
4. Client Committee
5. Term Sheet
6. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment
7. Sign off on Final Proposal
8. AOB: James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: Need to discuss delivery of a draft timeline for implementation to ICG at some stage today if possible.