This is my understanding too. I see from the minutes: Action (Sidley team): looking at the internal models (functional

separation and legal separation) with focus on the entity which is the IANA functions.

While the CWG has put external "on ice" for now, I don't think functional separation and legal separation fully capture the possible differences between internal and hybrid model. As I understand it, legal separation would create an IANA affiliate, potentially with ICANN as sole member ("owner"). Proponents of the hybrid model have stated, and others agreed, that one variant of that model could "provide a path" to include the RIRs and IETF if they desired at some future date. In that case, an IANA affiliate could potentially have more than one members ("ownership"). A related point about leadership and management of an IANA affiliate. In any variant, I personally don't think it's prudent to have overlapping individuals between ICANN (or any policy organization) and an IANA affiliate. We don't want to introduce the possibility of conflicting incentives. For many, I think an overall objective is to maintain separation of policy and implementation activities. In sum, I hope CWG is not precluding further exploration of these possible variations in "ownership" and management of an IANA affiliate. Hopefully, independent counsel will be providing us with a range of separation alternatives. --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Seun,

It is my understanding that we have asked Sidley to look both the internal accountability and the hybrid subsidiary models.

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 4:08 PM *To:* Brenda Brewer *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA F2F Day 2 Session 8 | 27 March

Hello,

Briefly reading through this, It seem "internal accountability" is no longer considered but the "integrated/hybrid" is? (I guess I will have to go through the transcript for the sessions I missed) In anycase I think it was the best meeting of the CWG ever.

Thanks to staff for all the effort and to Brenda/Grace especially for the remote support. I also like to specially commend the Co-Chairs for the level of coordination provided through the meeting to ensure focus that produced great outcome. Kudus to the entire CWG for the level of maturity exhibited as well.... at the end, whatever solution will come up with will be attributed to the entire community so it will be win win for us all as I expect we are all interested in the continued operation of IANA in a manner that maintains/improve overall stability of the DNS.

On an unrelated note, my country Nigeria decides on it's next president tomorrow, do remember us in your prayers as we go through the process.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 27 Mar 2015 16:49, "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Face to Face Day 2 Session 8 Meeting on 27 March are available here: Session 8 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893304>

Action Items

· *Action (Lise): set a deadline for Principles*

· *Action (Sidley team): looking at the internal models (functional separation and legal separation) with focus on the entity which is the IANA functions. * * From there, look into what the implementation possibilities /requirements are. Focus on the diversity of the gTLD and ccTLD legacies.*

· *Action: Cheryl and Alan to work this out*

· *Action (members): go back to their chartering org and explain the timeline and the short form/ long form proposal *

· *Action (staff): look at lessons learned for document management from PC in Policy and Implementation WG* Notes

*Question to consider during the break*

What are the fundamental issues that we are trying to solve for?

Are we or can we converge around a solution? Is there something around which we can converge?

Comments:

·

- Suggest that external is put to the side for now, and that the integrated/hybrid model be brought forward - Look at this from perspective of stability and continuity is important and may lead to hybrid model - With hybrid, we are taking the bet on enhancing ICANN's accountability, and if we lose that bet, then it should be lost publically. Contract Co. is hedging against that bet. - Registries would like to explore the internal solutions further - A proposal that Sidley look into the Hybrid model and Contract Co. model - There are a lot of similarities in the internal models -- would like for Sidley to look at those - We got input on the Contract Co. model from our Public Comment in December 2014 - Would *not* communicate that we have eliminated Contract Co. - How do we fill in the gaps in the Hybrid model? Perhaps Sidley can assist with that - Contract Co. may have ideas to contribute to Hybrid - Sidley can help us understand how we institutionalize the link with the CCWG-Acct work (Sidley is working with both groups) - Consider the broader community (the GAC, the WSIS+10 review, etc)

*Chair's summary: *

We don't want to pre-empt a decision, but we want a focus

There are still details to iron out

Sidley will focus on internal models

We are working closely with CCWG-acct and are perhaps even giving them more direction for their work with our focus

*Action* (Lise): set a deadline for Principles

*Action* (Sidley team): looking at the internal models (functional separation and legal separation) with focus on the entity which is the IANA functions. From there, look into what the implementation possibilities /requirements are. Focus on the diversity of the gTLD and ccTLD legacies.

*Design Team Status Update*

·

· DTA -- prefer before 10 April

· DTB is in progress (survey ends on 3 April)

· DTC has a lot of work to do before 10 April

· DTD is changing its purpose to move the considerations to DTF

*Action:* Cheryl and Alan to work this out

·

· DTE is complete and will be submitted to Red team

· DTF -- Alan is lead

· DTL -- waiting on some requested documents

· DTM may need to revisit considering CCWG output

· DTN will take guidance and registries document for as input

· DTO -- needs a lead

· Red Team will be staff led

Thank you DTs for all the good work

*Timeline*

Compiled by Berry Cobb

Main changes:

·

- Public Comment is shifted back to 20 April - High intensity to prepare for public comment is moved to 13-14 April - Translation is important - Public Comment may require special device with specific questions (part of the structured for discussed) - Structured PC makes the analysis more accurate and easier to do. - Risk factor of community concensus remains -- members must do their best to communicate back with their groups consistently so that there are no surprises

*Action* (members): go back to their chartering org and explain the timeline and the short form/ long form proposal

*Action* (staff): look at lessons learned for document management from PC in Policy and Implementation WG

*Key Dates*

· 10 April – deadline for DTs to provide content

· 13-14 Intensive working days – Preparing final proposal

· 20 Apr (Monday) – Start of Public Comment for 30 days

· 20 May (Wednesday) – Close of Public Comment

- - - Review public Comments / Continue Proposal Development - -

· 30 May (Saturday) – High-Intensity weekend

· 08 Jun (Monday) – Deliver Names Proposal to SOs/ACs

· 25 Jun (Thursday) - Deliver Names Proposal to ICG

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship