Action Items

Action: monitor project plan for SLE implementation (and check on funding as part of this)

Action (SLE Team) to include seeking confirmation on adequate funding as part of their work

Action: CWG-Stewardship to deal both with ICG and Chartering Organization questions.

Action: CWG-Stewardship to meet shortly after the CCWG-Accountability document is ready for Public Comment and comment/review (course-correction if necessary). The same type of review will need to take place before final submission (anticipated for ICANN 54 in Dublin)

Notes

1. Opening Remarks

We have approval from all five Chartering Organizations.

CWG-Stewardship will communicate proposal to ICG immediately following this meeting.

2. Approval from chartering organizations

ccNSO -- had Council meeting yesterday and approved submissions of proposal to the ICG. When doing 'sense of the room'
earlier, there were no abstentions or objections.

ALAC -- met earlier today and approved the proposal. highlighted two comments:

1. selection of two PTI Board members should focus on diversity

2. successful operation of PTI will be contingent on adequate funding (especially for R&D)

ALAC Motion ratifying CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2015-June/008762.html

GAC -- GAC letter of approval: https://community.icann.org/x/lKY0Aw

GNSO -- approved the motion to transmit report. highlighted conditionality

SSAC -- SAC072 comment on CWG-Stewardship proposal is supportive of proposal

3. Future work of the CWG-Stewardship

• pre-submission to NTIA

Need to finalize SLEs (work from DT-A, now called "SLE Team")

· Patricio Poblete (ccNSO): next step is to come to agreement on framework. Software changes will follow based on ICANN assessment for timing.

· Chuck Gomes (GNSO): costs for implementation of changes based on SLEs need to be covered

Action: monitor project plan for SLE implementation (and check on funding as part of this)

Action (SLE Team) to include seeking confirmation on adequate funding as part of their work

ICG assessment by 7 July. ICG will communicate to CWG-Stewardship on 8 July. CWG-Stewardship can expect clarifying questions. The plan is therefore to have a meeting on 9 July at 17:00 UTC.

Action: CWG-Stewardship to deal both with ICG and Chartering Organization questions.

ICG will then compile document for Public Comment around 14 July. Document is unlikely to go out for Public Comment until end of July.

Action: CWG-Stewardship to meet shortly after the CCWG-Accountability document is ready for Public Comment and comment/review (course-correction if necessary). The same type of review will need to take place before final submission (anticipated for ICANN 54 in Dublin)

• post-submission to NTIA

What, if any, role does the CWG-Stewardship have in implementation?

Greg Shatan (GNSO): need to break this time period into two blocks. One for NTIA consideration time and one for implementation time.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): at least one question in SAC072 needs to be addressed by DT-F. Some groups or DTs may need to gather to answer
those questions. Chairs will need to alert the groups and direct work.
James Gannon (GNSO): suggestion for 'Implementation Review Team' as a sub-group of CWG-Stewardship for those who are interested.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC): the CCWG-Accountability has a timeline with Public Comment periods through implementation.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): Pass the baton to the ICG so they can run Public Comments, but the CWG-Stewardship should consider more formal submissions that just individual comments.
Chuck Gomes (GNSO): Principle from the Policy & Implementation WG in the GNSO: should be ongoing communication to make sure that the intent of the recommendations is followed.

4. Response to letter from ICG (on trademark)

Short term: our response to ICG needs to clarify that our proposal is effectively silent on the trademark issue

Action Plan to deal with intellectual property, including IANA trademark and domain name registration:

1. Respond to the ICG

2. Meet with the other proposing groups

3. Compile an agreed set of facts

4. Start to work with potential solutions/resolutions with professional assistance

5. Formulate a CWG-Stewardship position if necessary

Chuck Gomes (GNSO): Need for action plan on trademark issue in today's meeting so that we can resolve sooner rather than later.
Greg Shatan (GNSO): Need an independent person to provide guidance.
Seun Ojedeji (ALAC): Need a high-level view on the community views on IPR before going into legal view.
Chuck Gomes (GNSO): Suggest that we reach out to both IANAPLAN and CRISP and involve them in CWG advice-seeking. CWG should not work independent of the other groups.
Andrew Sullivan (IAB): procedural problem with this plan: this coordination could reopen an issue that already had
agreement within the IETF. Working method for IANAPLAN is mailing list based.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): Legal advice is not complex on this issue. To solve the issue, we need the facts and the goals (the rationale). Could
get this from the other communities.
James Gannon (GNSO): Action plan as follows: 1) Set out the facts as they are; 2) set out what we want at the end; 3) we reach out to
our counsel (a, b, c); 4) we then reach out to other communities; 5) we bring resolution to ICG.
Greg Shatan (GNSO): Identify a small group within this group to identify the facts.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): unfortunate that communities couldn't have gotten together sooner. Try to cover separation possibility (where the issue lies).
Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP): offer to help :) Happy to have formal and informal process on this issue, but if the result of conversations could
change position for the groups, the groups will need to go back to their communities and go back through bottom-up process.
Greg Shatan (GNSO): start with facts.

5. Future coordination

Chairs have had contact with the various groups along the way.
Will need to keep in touch with the CCWG-Accountability in particular both as Chairs and as a CWG.
ICANN, as facilitator, will maintain an overview of the program. Chairs intend to feed in to that group where they need to provide input.

6. AOB

Thank you to Sidley Austin, in particular Holly Gregory and Sharon Flanagan. Legal advice was critical to success of the CWG-Stewardship's work.
Thank you staff!
Thank you members, participants, and everyone who has supported to the CWG-Stewardship in getting a proposal to the ICG