Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA High Intensity Meeting, Session 6 - 29 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%2355 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: DTs aim to finalize responses to PC and documents/edits to draft proposal by Monday 1 June at 12:00 UTC Action: Staff to provide updated draft for sections iv, v, vi in draft to be circulated for Tuesday's call (2 June) Notes Overall Timeline / Milestones * 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - review final proposal (sign-off?) * 8 June - submission to SO/ACs * 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - Next steps, communication, other issues * W/C 8 June - Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June? * 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires Notes: Eduardo Diaz on audio only 1. Recap & Continuation of Prior Meeting * Worked with outputs from DT-N and DT-SR/X IFRT * Agreement to add ccNSO member to IFRT * Alternates -- 2 options: members could each have alternates (doubling the size) OR member could name alternates in case of substitution * These groups are open and transparent processes so anyone can observe proceedings * Clarification: No additional gTLD representation S[C]WG * Geographic diversity where possible * Skillset recommendations * Expansion proposition: 3 gTLD registries & 3 ccTLD registries (one additional ccTLD registry and one additional gTLD registry). The registries must ensure georgraphic diversity. * This group is also open and transparent so anyone can observe proceedings * Recognising that at the time the SWG will be invoked this will be at the end of a substantial process. As such, the SWG is expected to move will be required to move forward with expediency and due diligence. Separation Costs * Transition costs and ongoing operation costs * Sufficient portion of registry fees would be dedicated to the IANA services which would carry over should there be to the new operator should there be a separation, but this should not result in an increase in fees. May need to be evaluated periodically to assess whether there have been changes in budget. * ICANN maintains responsibility for funding of the IANA functions services whether in house or not (for any future state of the IANA functions) Key points on Separation Costs * 1. in the event of a future transition, ICANN would fund transition * 2. ICANN is responsible for ongoing funding of IANA operation & services * 3. no raise in fees directly associated with that 2. Design Teams Action: DTs aim to finalize responses to PC and documents/edits to draft proposal by Monday 1 June at 12:00 UTC 3. Outstanding Sections Action: Staff to provide updated draft for sections iv, v, vi in draft to be circulated for Tuesday's call (2 June) 4. Client Committee * Client Committee to ask Sidley to assist CWG with assuring condionality with CCWG-Accountability proposal * For ICANN 53 in BA, Holly will cover CCWG Accountability and may not be able to fully cover both groups, so request for Sharon Flanagan attendance as well. * Assistance with Bylaws -- making sure changes are clear and known * Punch List reviewed and checked for completeness (CWG staff to compile first) 5. Term Sheet * Term Sheet is available here: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Term%20Sheet%20-%2... 0.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1432138454000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Term%20Sheet%20-%2... .docx?version=1&modificationDate=1432138454000&api=v2 * The Term Sheet is a draft set of terms that will be implemented in the ICANN-PTI Contract (foundation on which the contract could be based) * Comments on Term Sheet due on Monday June 1 at 23:59 UTC 6. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment * Coordination between groups * We received comments from the CCWG Chairs and CWG Chairs plan to respond to their public comment as well by 3 June 7. Sign off on Final Proposal * Draft Final on Tuesday 2 June * 2nd reading and sign off on Thursday 4 June * No vote (preferred) -- instead a process of non-objection * If there are objections to signing off, we should seek explanations (and where possible try to remedy them) * Distinguish between SO/AC approval and CWG approval 8. AOB: James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: Need to discuss delivery of a draft timeline for implementation to ICG at some stage today if possible. * Part of Section IV -- work in progress