Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call on 22 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51417874 Notes: RFP 3B Call Tuesday 27 January 2015, 14.00-16.00 UTC 1. Welcome Welcome by the RFP 3B coordinator 2. Roll call All on ADOBE Connect recorded as present Eduardo Diaz Audio only 3. Internal to ICANN Option Introduction by coordinator. Request to PS to clarify issues. BT (staff support) and coordinator, expanded on another internal solution Question: first "Trust" ? Response: not much progress on trust proposal given the need for legal advise. Any question re. PS email a. "Trust" b." No Trust" Internal arrangement Presentation BT on internal solution Caveats: * * Generic approach. If it is ICANN internal, most likely, most work is around managing the IANA work: community role , monitoring it ,and engage with IANA * * Approach also trying to capture most of input received, on mechanics. * * General considerations: model to replace internal mechanisms to take away need for Contract Co. * * Need to create SO type body through ICANN Body. Reasons: no NTIA contract , hence need to create method to establish formal communication with ICANN with respect to preforming the IANA Functions. To represent the needs of the IANA Function customers * * IN this approach CSC and MRT need to be represented as well. To keep it simple: the CSC is inside the MRT ( sub-group), they are linked anyway and ther is an escalation path. Does this mean the CSC only made up of persons on the MRT? Reason to include in MRT is administrative simplicity. Characteristics of CSC could be specified in ICANN Bylaws. * * MRT members have permanent members. Reason: need to fullfill functions as envisioned. This iimplies need to define membership and mechnisms. Under this proposal non- SO/AC associated interests can be included (example ccNSO and role of non-ccNSO members) How does it relate to Contract Co option? * * MRT to prepare IANA statement of Work. every 3-5 years.and send to ICANN Board for approval ( if no agreement, accountability mechanisms kick-in. * * What would MRT in other years. Escalation path for CSC: Annual ports from CSC and community, could also include recommendations to the Board In case of serious breach, MRT Separation Of IANA ( key component ) if needed/required. Mechanics need to be worked on. How to avoid ICANN Board from changing th eBylaws of MRT? Bylaws evolution may need to be needed. However, Chris Disspain: - Pushback on Auda on proposal of golden Bylaw or trust. What is best way forward? Any push from the button, must at least be endorsed by the GNSO and ccNSO. In reality the internal SO's need to involved Continuum analysis: Contract Co one end of the continuum at the other end give it to ICANN and can not be removed. Moving away from the exterm ICANN internal option. First step is going to "Golden Bylaw" option. The next step closer to Contract Co, is the "Trust" model, slightly more clearly defined. A lot of non-common law jursidiction do not understand the notion of "trust" Critical to get independent legal advice on 3 models; * * First question are the options legally viable * What are risks involved in each of the options * Do the lawyers have other ideas. AM: Ask Greg Shatan where we are with respect to legal advise Response on comments: SO and AC approval included in draft. There neds to be formal support for MRT decision. Document is about how it could work, form a practical point of view. There are unknown around Contract Co. Alan Greenberg( AG): MRT may initiate, but AG supporter of "No Trust" , now moving towards "trust" to accommodate those who are in support of Contract Co. "Golden Bylaw" is related to shareholders. better use other term. Question: Does separation need Board approval? Response: th ICANN Board will be involved, however how it is constraint. Note CD: it is entirely possible to craft bylaws that prevent the Board to overturn/ <http://change.it/> change it. AM: Legal advice needed on "Bylaw construct" AG: The CCWG is charged with accountability. The CCWG is working in the direction of accountability of Board i.e. can not overrule the community. AM: Notes overlap with "trust: question should there be two "internal options"? CD: Counter question: why should viable options be excluded, until such time legal advise has been received Donna Austin: Not sensible to exclude options. Comments received also included to "Internal to ICANN" solution. Martin Boyle: agrees with conclusion to provide a range of different options. in solution proposed by BT: how does the process move into separation of IANA? Solution has to be put in by Accountability CCWG or looking at creation Contract Co. at the point the process reached the point of separation Response BT: Draft deals with 99% point of time of IANA Function performance. How to deal with separation i.e the extreme situation, needs legal adivise. Several option possible hence currently not included. AM: Include two options in the paper, Progress on seeking independent legal advice: Greg Shatan * * Scoping document has been prepared * Call of Client committee. Includes call with Samantha Eisner to understand options, either through procument process or use of other firm then Joones Day ( to avoid procurement process, and speed up engaging a law-firm). * * Goal is to have law-firm engaged asap, preferably before Singapore meeting * * Update on RFP 3b call on Thursday, if more to be send by Greg Shatan: scoping document includes reflection on "trust" option, and some of the follow-up questions ( such as "guardian" The document can be found at the Google doc link: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPfFokCAqTluwP3D0UD-9RPCHS8JqBVOW2dkuSr...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPfFokCAqTluwP3D0UD-9RPCHS8JqBVOW2dkuSr... Note scoping document is extensive, it is intended as background paper for the law-firm. Expectation is that the lawyers will be bale to drill down to the core questions for this group CWG paper to be drafted will not include any legal advise Question to BT: Can document be shared? It is clear it meant for discussion. Document is intended for discussion, all aspects are open. Action staff: Staff to share draft with the CWG MRT Section document Primary responsibility: Statement of work Question: Are there differences in MRT section relative to MRT under Contract Co? There are specific parts specific to Internal option. Question AM: focus on differences PS: what will the MRT and CSC will look like depends on what sits on the top ( Internal, trust, or contract co model) Specific for this option: mechanism around the IANA Function Statement of work ( IFSoW) and mechanism for escalation around the IFSow Managing the option of separation will be different, conditions, method etc. Chartering SO and AC need to support separation Explanation why some of the choices are made CSC Proposal for members Final section of paper: Notes and Issues.Includes additional questions and assumptions. 4. Summation and Next Steps Prepare a paper to inform the community in Singapore. No need to replicate CSC and MRT or IAP. Bernie's paper as part of the paper ( as Bylaw model) and include "Trust" model Should next meeting go ahead: dependent on Bernie turning around paper. At this stage need for feed-back by members of the RFP 3b group. Next step could also be to take document level deeper for example bylaw) CD: Need for legal advice. Let others assist in getting legal advice Bernie's document will be made available on Google docs Google Doc of Bernie's doc: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/10lR84kmBddiUISQCZFLXe5KLarIFG7GMKVvdPNm9...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10lR84kmBddiUISQCZFLXe5KLarIFG7GMKVvdPNm9... PS. to assist on "Trust" section Deadline to provide comments:on Bernie document: Friday 30 January 2015, 23.00 UTC 5. AOB 6. Next Meeting Cancelled 29 January. Next meeting TBD Action Items Deadline to provide comments:on Bernie document: Friday 30 January 2015, 23.00 UTC
