Action Items

· Action item: Sharon to draft language in relation to section 7 and will send to Grace.

· Action item: Staff to produce revised draft based on comments and input received within 24 hours (Wednesday 16.00 UTC).

· Action item: CWG-Stewardship to review updated draft within 24 hours (Thursday 16.00 UTC) - Chuck to suggest
language concerning timing issues and conditionality of a working escalation mechanism.

· Action item: Sidley to review final draft and produces final version by Friday 18 December

· Action item: All to review document and contribute to the list with any comments / feedback you have. To be further
discussed at the next meeting in January.

· Action item: written update to be provided on those items not covered on the call.

Notes

Eduardo Diaz, Holly Gregory, and David Conrad on audio only

1. Opening remarks

Status of CWG-Stewardship letter concerning implementation: ALAC confirmed during last meeting
that there were no objections to the proposed approach, ccNSO Council discussed the letter last
week and concluded that it was a natural and sensible approach and will confirm support in writing,
GNSO Chair confirmed that no objections have been received to the letter, SSAC - still reviewing but
no objections so far, GAC - still deliberating, call coming Friday to discuss further.
Client committee met with Sidley last week to discuss letter to CCWG-Accountability concerning requirements, instruction to simplify the Bylaws (see also item 4), implementation
of PTI (see also item 3).
Two calls with CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs since last meeting. Thomas, CCWG-Accountability
Co-Chair has joined this meeting to answer any questions there may be.
Co-chairs call with other operational communities later today to discus IPR issue.

2. CCWG Dependencies

See Sidley Draft circulated to CWG-Stewardship Mailing List
Proposed contribution to CCWG-Accountability as well as the chartering organizations to help inform
their deliberations on the proposal
Input received from various members of the CWG-Stewardship
Responding to proposal that is static but open to public comment which makes it slightly challenging. Comments
may or may not impact final output of the CCWG-Accountability. CWG-Stewardship input has to be based on proposal as it stands as it is not possible to anticipate possible changes at
this stage, but acknowledge at the same time that there may be further changes that may impact the identified
dependencies.
Section 1 - Community Empowerment Mechanism: Why should there be a limitation on the use of an escalation
process to remove a director to once during a director's three year term? Not necessarily a show-stopper, but not clear why it needs to be there. The use of the escalation process could be very limited by the time
constraints proposed, especially in a MSM environment. Proposed limitation is fine balance found between the
different positions in the CCWG-Accountability - so probably something the CWG-Stewardship may need to live
with. Does anything in the Board comments change the nature of the response? At first sight no fundamental
issues or show-stoppers identified from a dependency perspective.
Section 2 - ICANN Budget and IANA Budget: Note for CWG: Confirm that the limitation of the ability of the community
to challenge a budget as described in the draft proposal. Transparency key aspect for cc-community. In the event of
separation, it would be helpful to know how much a contract is costing. Sufficient funding to ensure staffing of IANA,
even in case of dispute with ICANN. Does the caretaker budget apply to IANA budget as well as overall ICANN
budget? Can be related, but there should be separate processes for the two. Is it possible to challenge / reject the
IANA budget, if the CWG-Stewardship process proposed is not followed? Nature of reforms are not being
reflected - which part of the budget is being rejected, names or all, names shouldn't be able to decide on the budget
assigned to other communities. Budget would cover all communities so a rejection would affect all. Issue could be
further dealt with in implementation? See also suggestions made by Chuck / Greg to request certain changes from CCWG-Accountability. Careful with use of IANA and PTI where appropriate in the document - to avoid ambiguity letter should
specify PTI or naming functions when applicable. Some functions will be provided to PTI by ICANN. When referring to
budget always use "PTI" rather than IANA; when referring to reviews of IANA functions, always refer to naming-related IANA functions.
Section 3 - firm up the recommendation that right to reject can be exercised an unlimited number of times.
Section 6 Separaton Process: if Board must approve creation of review CCWG, would it be possible for the Board
to block the initiaton of a review? Inaction should also be seen as a decision and as such falling under the enforcement mechanisms.
Section 7 Appeals Mechanism - is it possible to be more explicit with regards to what is required by CWG-Stewardship? Could add to Bylaws that ICANN needs to enforce contract with PTI - failure to enforce would also be subject
to enforcement and escalation or to make the sole designator a third party beneficiary to the contract with PTI. Consider
adding these as possible examples for dealing with this issue.

Action item: Sharon to draft language in relation to section 7 and will send to Grace.

· Changes to be made: change "recommend" to "require", change terminology as discussed.

· Intention is to submit the letter in time for the closing of the public comment period. Objective is to be as specific as possible
with regards to any possible changes that are being requested / suggested to the CCWG-Accountability.

· Need to be careful not to open up other elements of CWG-Stewardship work.

Action item: Staff to produce revised draft based on comments and input received within 24 hours (Wednesday 16.00 UTC).

Action item: CWG-Stewardship to review updated draft within 24 hours (Thursday 16.00 UTC) - Chuck to suggest language concerning
timing issues and conditionality of a working escalation mechanism.

Action item: Sidley to review final draft and produces final version by Friday 18 December

3. Implementation

Staff Update - see slides shared during the meeting. Project plans are in draft form - staff aiming to clarify with NTIA what
can be done prior to final approval. Comments: limited time available to develop budget process in the proposed plan. May
be worth starting that earlier. What is the reason for the delay on the info concerning SLEs? Current info is not exactly suitable
for new SLEs, staff is reviewing how to make these more suitable. Data comes from two different systems. Taking more time
than initially anticipated, also as the result of external contractors being involved.
DT-IPR - see document circulated to CWG-Stewardship mailing list. Take specific note of the decision points as
outlined in the document such as what type of neutrality does the naming community find acceptable - structural
or functional neutrality? Which relationship form will the names community require? Funding questions.

Action item: All to review document and contribute to the list with any comments / feedback you have. To be further
discussed at the next meeting in January.

• Creation of PTI - written update to be provided

4. Bylaws - further discussed with Sidley. Further updates to be provided. Responses to open questions to be developed
by relevant DT leads for CWG-Stewardship review (DT-M (Escalation -- Chuck) , DT-CSC (Donna) , and DT-N (Reviews -- Avri).

5. AOB

6. Closing Remarks

· Next call scheduled for 12 January at 16.00 UTC.

Action item: written update to be provided on those items not covered on the call.

Documents

· CWG Comment Letter.pdf

· Transition Implementation High Level Plans_CWG_15Dec2016.pdf

· DT-IPR Draft of December 14 2015.pdf