Dear all, 

The recordings, transcripts and other related material from the call will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/x/PZlYAw. 

Notes from the meeting are below for your review. 

CWG-Stewardship meeting #67 

-- Thursday 1 October at 11:00 UTC

Agenda: 

1. Opening Remarks

2. Implementation Schedule

3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses

4. Update from CCWG-Accountability

5. Update on legal work 

6. AoB

Notes: 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr on audio only

1. Opening Remarks

2 calls per week right now, but may not be needed. 

2. Implementation Schedule

• Chuck prepared a document for the group to review
• There is also an implementation list sent Jonathan to the CWG list (not presented on screen in AC room)
• ICG would like this shared this week. 
• This could be shared and then updated. View this as a 'work-in-progress'

ACTIONS: 

• Action(staff): read and review implementation document
• Action(CWG): read and review  implementation   document (24 hour window) 
• Action(Jonathan): send implementation document to ICG at approx. 13:00 UTC on Friday 2 Oct. Include communication that this document is work in progress/ not final. 
• Action:add an implementation action item to the inventory regarding RZM.
• Action:cross-check question 8 from the ICG against the implementation list. 

3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses

• ICG sent two batches of questions which are presented in the document on screen. CWG has already provided answers to questions. 
• On RZM question #1: ICG misunderstood the NTIA/Versign proposal. 
• On RZM question #2: we have a Standing Panel to approve substantial changes. So the answer includes, community consultation, expert consultation, and Board approval. Refer to paragraph 155 in the CWG Proposal (1155 in the ICG). Alan Greenberg: Proposed reply to Question 2: Both descriptions are correct but incomplete. The full answer is addressed in paragraph ICG 1155 (CWG 155). A change in the responsibilities of the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer is clearly a substantial architectual and operational change, and is therefore subject to a review of the standing review committee and ultimately ICANN Board approval. Subsection 5 of paragraph 155/1155 requires consultation through an ICANN Public Comment Process.
• On ccTLD questions #3, #4, #5: These were drafted by the ccTLD members/participants. No comments or concerns. Thank you ccTLD members/participants. 
• On PTI question #6: complete. no comments
• On PTI question #7: Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" since the CCWG-Accountability is currently working this out. Additional clarfications listed in action item. 
• On PTI question #8: no comments other than cross-checking with implementation. 
• On PTI question #9: PTI Board is responsible, but there is also recourse to the ICANN Board. Confirm with lawyers
• On questions #10, #11, #12 on scope: no comments
• On question #13: representative of IAB or appointed person will be involved in process. 

Summary of current status on ICG questions

• Further work needed on questions #1, #2, #7, #9, #13
• Provisionally closed questions: #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #10, #11, #12

• Action(staff): update Question #1 text on RZM with latest sent to list (by Alan)
• Action(staff): update question #2 per notes
• Action(staff): incorporate Christopher's input (and any other input received) where appropriate 
• Action(staff): Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" (perhaps by capitalizing the word Mechanism to refer to structure and by making a direct reference to the CCWG-Accountability). Add "in the event that there is divergence between the Board and the Community on an IFR decision/recommendation, the Community will be able to rely on other mechanisms that are being developed by the CCWG."
• Action(staff): update question #9 to include recourse to ICANN Board. 
• Action(Chairs): run updated answer to question #9 by the lawyers
• Action(staff): staff to draft response to #13

4. Update from CCWG-Accountability

2-Day LA F2F Meeting 

5. Update on legal work 

• Bylaws drafting -- no update this week
• Previous action on question #9 for ICG
• Billing -- lawyers are reluctant to have full detail of billing shared publicly. They are ok with the Chairs or Client Committee having confidential access to the fine billing. Can the CWG trust that the Client Committee will review these bills on a confidential basis? Any concerns or objections? None recorded. 

6. AoB

Action(staff): resend meeting schedule