Action Items

Action (Sidley): consider another term for 'inside'/'outside' Board

Action (Stephanie) -- will do an overview of draft to make sure clarification/scope for naming functions is clear.

Notes

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

Current schedule for rest of meetings:

· Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) – Remaining open issues including implementation and timescales

Notes:

Focus now on DC
The function of the PTI Board is to operate the subsidiary to meet, at minimum, the statutorily requirements for the subsidiary. In addition the PTI
Board will have to ensure that the PTI as the subsidiary performs to meet the conditions of the contract which will encapsulate all the SLEs and
other requirements that PTI is expected to meet.
The provisional construct of the PTI Board would be a range of 3-5 people with, for example, the President of GDD, CTO, IANA Managing
Director, and two additional directors. The CWG will consider making recommendations as to the skill set of PTI Board directors.
A suggestion, consistent with the provisional construct, which received some traction is as follows: ICANN Board not CEO selects the 3 members
of the PTI board from among ICANN employees with advice and consent of CEO; and also selects 2 members of the PTI Board from among
ICANN Board members.
Tested this construct against the Public Comments, mindful that the PC was issued before there were further details on PTI

Clarification on what 'inside board' means:

From 13 May memo: "By “insider board,” we mean a PTI board comprised of a majority of directors who are employed by ICANN, including members of ICANN management responsible for oversight of the IANA functions."
In the 13 May memo, assumption that ICANN was selecting PTI Board.
Not meant as a pejorative term

Action (Sidley): consider another term for 'inside'/'outside' Board

"Separation Process"

Chuck Gomes proposed some edits/clarifications
Composition for the IFRT and the SCWG would be the same

Composition

The SCWG/IFRT would be composed as follows :

● ccNSO - 1

● ccTLDs (non-ccNSO) - 1

● Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) - 2

● Registrar Stakeholder Group (RsSG) - 1

● Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) - 1

● Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) - 1

● Government Advisory Committee (GAC) - 1

● Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) - 1

● Root Server Operators Advisory Committee (RSSAC) - 1

● At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) - 1

● CSC Liaison (selected by CSC) - 1

● Special IFR Team Liaison (selected by IFR Team) - 1

● Liaison from Protocol operational community - 1 (tbd with their approval)

● Liaison from Numbers operational community - 1 (tbd with their approval)

Composition is to remain an unresolved items,

Suggestion that regional cc organizations could provide input to ccNSO in selection/appointment of representative.

Scope of IFRT

Action (Stephanie) -- will do an overview of draft to make sure clarification/scope for naming functions is clear.

Home of IFRT within ICANN so as to inherit resources and expertise

The group could make a recommendation on the "fit for purpose" so that appointing committees have an idea of the skillset needed to make appointments.

Review must be initiated by ICANN Board and approved by ICANN Board -- these are 'checks along the way' for governance of the organization

Open Issues:

- initiation of special reviews (not having to go through Board approval; community consulation as base for board approval; is Board approval a barrier timewise?)

- composition of IFRT and SIFR

Views of the group on unresolved issues:

Chuck supports expansion of SCWG composition (with both ccTLD and gTLD expansion given the specifics of the tasks at hand)
Martin still thinks that ccTLDs would be under-represented on IFRT but could live with increasing to 2 ccNSO
reps instead of one. Agreement with Chuck on expansion of SCWG
Avri has no strong issue with addition of cc member on IFRT, but concerned about alternates and other forms of expansion.

Recap:

Make sure both groups are fit for purpose so, the CWG should specifiy skillsets for each group
One additional ccNSO rep is possible on IFRT

Document resources:

All Client Committee documents are here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee