Edited 'punch list' from the meeting is attached. CWG IANA Meeting #40 at 14:00 UTC Agenda: 1. High Level Recap on Structural 2. Review of Punch List (Chronological / Alphabetical) 3. Instructions to Sidley? 4. ³Instructions² to the CCWG (Optional) 5. Way Forward Notes: Plan for this call is to go through the punch list from start to finish to assist Sidley. Also will review work for the CCWG. Request to do a side-by-side comparison of the two variants. Sharon kindly provided one via Client list. This was provided to the CWG list as well. Periodic Review Function has been renamed IANA Review Function. We are not settled on the insider Board. We could live with it providing sufficient accountability mechanisms The Board could be internal and independent We have to define the function/role and then see what is the composition of the PTI Board. 2. Review of Punch List (Chronological / Alphabetical) (Edits in Word document on screen share) Can the group compromise on legal separation? Yes, at this stage. 3. Instructions to Sidley? · Filled out punch list · DT-C (CSC) Adequacy of provision for Conflicts of Interest & Governance · Conditional Proposal Wording Implied ³Contract with the CCWG² 4. Instructions for CCWG? ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions) Response: The CWG supports the idea of budget veto tool, and the CWG expects the CCWG to deliver on this ability for the community to veto the budget. Furthermore, with regards to the details to be provided in relation to the IANA budget, the CWG is expected to recommend as part of its transition plan that: 1. The IANA Function¹s comprehensive costs should be transparent for any future state of the IANA Function. 2. Future FY ICANN Operating Plans & Budgets, and if possible even the FY16 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget, include at a minimum itemization of all IANA operations costs in the FY ICANN Operating Plan & Budget to the project level and below as needed. Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option) Response: As part of the structure that the CWG is currently considering (Internal accountability hybrid model: legal separation variant), the CWG will be relying on the community empowerment and accountability mechanisms that the CCWG is considering such as the ability to review of ICANN Board decisions on the IANA periodic review performance (PRF); approve or reject board decisions on PRF as well as the related creation of a stakeholder community / member group to trigger these kinds of abilities. As such the CWG wants to emphasize again the interlinkage and interdependence between the two groups and the need to continue close co-operation and regular information sharing. Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism) Response: The CWG is expected to recommend that a periodic review of the IANA functions is scheduled to take place no later than every 5 years and would operate in a manner analogous to an AOC review. As the CWG understands that the CCWG is working on incorporating other periodic reviews as mandated by the AoC, the CWG would like to know whether an IANA Periodic Review could be incorporated as part of those efforts. Further details on the mechanics of such a review are available and can be shared should the CCWG confirm that this is indeed something that can be incorporated as part of the CCWG¹s efforts. Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues) Response: The CWG recommends that the CCWG should be mindful of the recommendations of the CWG in relation to an appeals mechanism for ccTLDs and the survey results that led to this recommendation which notes that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (post-transition). As such, any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover ccTLD delegation / re-delegation issues as these are expected to be developed by the ccTLD community through the appropriate processes. However, the CWG does want to emphasize the importance and need for an appeal mechanism to cover any other issues that may involve IANA and notes that this is option is expected to be specifically called out as one of the possible escalation mechanisms in the draft transition proposal. 5. Way Forward Design Teams will complete their work by end of day Wednesday so that the work can be discussed on the CWG call on Thursday at 17:00 UTC. Template for public comment response. One of the Chairs will facilitate the DT negotiation call on Wednesday. Sidley should join. Action (Chairs): send instructions