Hi all, Milton had requested that we make the proposal more visible at the top of the page. Per my action item, I have added a grey box at the top of the page to meet that requirement. Here¹s the link to the page: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04 -22-en The Chairs have indicated that there may be further edits to the page that could make it more accessible. I will work on enhancing the accessibility of the page within the formatting requirements. Best, Grace From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 8:25 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #44 - 5 May Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #44 5 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53772821 Action Items Action (Sidley): revise the punch list and republish (removing AoC review question; and renaming 'separation review' to 'separation processs'; add DT-F's authorization of RZM changes) Action (Grace): make clear the link to proposal on the public comment page Notes Useful Links for CWG-Stewardship · View submissions received (3 so far): http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15 / <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1 5/> · Public comment webpage: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04 -22-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0 4-22-en> · Webinar announcement: https://community.icann.org/x/V4E0Aw <https://community.icann.org/x/V4E0Aw> Notes for meeting #44: 1. Opening remarks · This is a management call to agree on outstanding issues and who is dealing with them, etc. The goal is to get everyone on the same page. · We need to continue working during the public comment, but incorporate the submissions at the same time. · Have been asked to do additional webinars and there will be two more tomorrow. Please make sure to recirculate the announcement so that we can get as much attendance as possible. 2. CCWG dependencies and the new CCWG draft proposal · CCWG-Accountability published their draft yesterday: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201 5-05-04-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20 15-05-04-en> . · Chairs coordinated with the CCWG-Acct chairs and Sidley to make sure that the CWG-Stewardship dependencies were properly addressed. · CCWG-Acct will be on Thursday call and we can ask them questions directly then (meeting #45). 3. Sidley¹s Punch List (including DT-A and DT-F status) · Punch List highlights priority items for discussion (as part of refining the CWG proposal) · Some areas of work can be best dealt with by existing DTs, but chairs were relunctant to create new DTs and/or spread the work out to all DTs considering the timeline. · Three big issues: determining PTI legal status; determining size and composition of PTI Board; and determining scope of PTI Board role. · Discussion on integrating IFR into the AoC review structure --> the IFR is not an AoC review per se, but it's a review of the same standing as the AoC reviews (it's a comparison). · DT-C will address questions assigned to it. · DT-M will also address their questions · DT-A will continue its work and address its questions as part of its work · Note that "Separation Review" will be renamed "Separation Process". Possible creation of a Design Team to work on separation process as an exception. Avri will lead the group, with some help from DT-N, but no need to create new mailing list for the work. · DT-F will reconvene to address authorization of RZM changes Action (Sidley): revise the punch list and republish (removing AoC review question; and renaming 'separation review' to 'separation processs'; add DT-F's authorization of RZM changes) 4. Section IV Staff to draft sections IV, V, VI, taking input and guidance from CWG on mailing list and during CWG meetings. 5. Public comments · 3 comments received so far. · PTI as a separate entity is getting most feedback. Some think it's not helpful and some think it's not separate enough. · Staff will propose a public comment template/ work approach for meeting on Tuesday next week. Action (Grace): make clear the link to proposal on the public comment page 6. AOB No issues raised.
