Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016
Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting on 11 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/RieAAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a. Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps. Notes 1. Review of CWG-Stewardship responses on Bylaws (lead by DT leads for each section) * Question 8: response approved with "direct customers" * Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry. * Question 10: no change. * Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws. * Question 12: no change. * Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'. Or an alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large". * Question 14: no change. * Question 15: no change. * Question 16: Suggest going back to original CWG proposal language ("reasonable consultation with SOs and ACs") * Question 17: clarification on the definition of performance. * Question 18: no change * Question 19: no change * Question 20: Suggestion for "as many individuals be appointed as possible". Agreement no to specify any numbers. * Question 21: no change * Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles. * Question 24: no change * Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify. * Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs. Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a. 2. AOB Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items may be able to be provided via email. Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.
The note on Number 9 is incorrect. The reference should be to the NCPH (Non-Contracted Parties House) not to the NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, which is 1/2 of the NCPH). Please correct this to read: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or *NCPH*. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry. [image: http://hilweb1/images/signature.jpg] *Gregory S. Shatan | Partner*McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873 F: 212-416-7613 gshatan @mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting on 11 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/RieAAw
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Kind regards,
Brenda
[image: ---]
Action Items
*Action* *(Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.*
*Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.*
Notes
*1. Review of CWG-Stewardship responses on Bylaws (lead by DT leads for each section)*
· *Question 8*: response approved with "direct customers"
· *Question 9* : change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry.
· *Question 10*: no change.
· *Question 11* : the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws.
· *Question 12*: no change.
· *Question 13:* We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'. Or an
alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the
IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [ *and/or] *the ICANN community at large".
· *Question 14*: no change.
· *Question 15*: no change.
· *Question 16* : Suggest going back to original CWG proposal language ("reasonable consultation with SOs and ACs")
· *Question 17*: clarification on the definition of performance.
· *Question 18*: no change
· *Question 19*: no change
· *Question 20* : Suggestion for "as many individuals be appointed as possible". Agreement no to specify any numbers.
· *Question 21*: no change
· *Question 22:* no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship
proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles.
· *Question 24*: no change
· Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify.
· Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs.
*Action* (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.
*2. AOB*
Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items may be able to be provided via email.
*Action* (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thank you for the correction Greg. My error for not re-reading the notes. -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 11, 2016 at 3:05 PM To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016 The note on Number 9 is incorrect. The reference should be to the NCPH (Non-Contracted Parties House) not to the NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, which is 1/2 of the NCPH). Please correct this to read: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCPH. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry. Gregory S. Shatan | Partner McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873 F: 212-416-7613 gshatan @mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote: Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting on 11 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/RieAAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a. Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps. Notes 1. Review of CWG-Stewardship responses on Bylaws (lead by DT leads for each section) · Question 8: response approved with "direct customers" · Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry. · Question 10: no change. · Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws. · Question 12: no change. · Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'. Or an alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large". · Question 14: no change. · Question 15: no change. · Question 16: Suggest going back to original CWG proposal language ("reasonable consultation with SOs and ACs") · Question 17: clarification on the definition of performance. · Question 18: no change · Question 19: no change · Question 20: Suggestion for "as many individuals be appointed as possible". Agreement no to specify any numbers. · Question 21: no change · Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles. · Question 24: no change · Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify. · Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs. Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a. 2. AOB Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items may be able to be provided via email. Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Grace Another correction for the notes. The point I was making in AoB was the current draft Bylaws do not (adequately) address the difference between gTLDs (who obtain their authority from ICANN under contract) and ccTLDs (the vast majority pre-date ICANN and have no formal relationship with ICANN) and ccTLDs and gTLDs have very different Policy development mechanism. IMHO it is essential that any PTI (in the new Bylaws under consideration) articulates and respects the differences between ccTLDs and gTLDs... as IANA has done since its inception. The other point was on current inconsistencies which you correctly captured - the example I gave was Page 80 of the Bylaws cites Section 16.3(a) - which does not exist.... and there are many other such fundamental errors. Best Paul Quoting Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>:
Thank you for the correction Greg. My error for not re-reading the notes.
-- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006
Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638
Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE.
From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 11, 2016 at 3:05 PM To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016
The note on Number 9 is incorrect. The reference should be to the NCPH (Non-Contracted Parties House) not to the NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, which is 1/2 of the NCPH).
Please correct this to read: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCPH. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry.
Gregory S. Shatan | Partner McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873 F: 212-416-7613 gshatan @mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com
BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote: Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting on 11 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/RieAAw
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Kind regards,
Brenda
Action Items
Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.
Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.
Notes
1. Review of CWG-Stewardship responses on Bylaws (lead by DT leads for each section)
· Question 8: response approved with "direct customers"
· Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry.
· Question 10: no change.
· Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws.
· Question 12: no change.
· Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'. Or an alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large".
· Question 14: no change.
· Question 15: no change.
· Question 16: Suggest going back to original CWG proposal language ("reasonable consultation with SOs and ACs")
· Question 17: clarification on the definition of performance.
· Question 18: no change
· Question 19: no change
· Question 20: Suggestion for "as many individuals be appointed as possible". Agreement no to specify any numbers.
· Question 21: no change
· Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles.
· Question 24: no change
· Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify.
· Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs.
Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.
2. AOB
Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items may be able to be provided via email.
Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (4)
-
Brenda Brewer -
Grace Abuhamad -
Greg Shatan -
Paul M Kane - CWG