Andrew, As I mentioned, these could be handled by an Implementation Review Team working in conjunction with staff, which is the current GNSO approach to dealing with post-WG issues. Furthermore, we have clearly heard the message that this proposal is not going to succeed in getting the NTIA and Congressional approvals it needs if implementation is not factored in in some fashion. If we act like implementation is "not our problem," because it's not within the four corners of our charter, we are creating a problem, not solving one. In any event, we have discussed the need for the CWG to remain in place not only to interact with the ICG, but to be available to respond to inquiries from the NTIA and Congress. If that's not contemplated in the Charter, we should address that. It's highly unusual for an ICANN WG to have a proposal that requires external approvals, so if this is not contemplated in the Charter, it's because the current situation was not foreseen. If you think our work is done, other than answering questions, and that the implementation should be left to "other people," that's fine. Others have proposed extending the CWG, or believe that our mandate is broad enough to cover further activity without an extension or charter revision. But between the CWG, the ICG and ICANN, there needs to be some understanding of who those other people are, and how they well turn our blueprints into a structure that actually exists. If we wipe our hands and walk away, because the proposal is now in the ICG's hands, we might as well never have started in the first place. Greg On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:48:59PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

that is the case, we have not discussed whether the CWG/IRT will provide "terms of reference" for those bylaws, whether CWG/IRT and outside counsel will review drafts of these articles and bylaws, etc.

Is that within the charter? I'm not sure. My reading of the charter is that the goal was to produce a proposal. It has been produced, because it's shipped. That's the only top-line deliverable, in my reading.

There are two further items, which involve interaction with the ICG.

I don't see anything in the charter about proposals for the implementation and so on. I could easily be mistaken, however.

This is the charter I was reading:

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Charter

Best regards,

A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

I think the idea of forming an Implementation Review Team is worth considering. Guidelines for IRTs are provided in the GNSO Policy & Implementation Final Report. Granted that report was done for the GNSO but as a biased co-chair of that WG, I think that they would be broadly applicable to the CWG. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 4:52 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director +1 On 01-Jul-15 16:45, Greg Shatan wrote:

Andrew,

As I mentioned, these could be handled by an Implementation Review Team working in conjunction with staff, which is the current GNSO approach to dealing with post-WG issues. Furthermore, we have clearly heard the message that this proposal is not going to succeed in getting the NTIA and Congressional approvals it needs if implementation is not factored in in some fashion. If we act like implementation is "not our problem," because it's not within the four corners of our charter, we are creating a problem, not solving one.

In any event, we have discussed the need for the CWG to remain in place not only to interact with the ICG, but to be available to respond to inquiries from the NTIA and Congress. If that's not contemplated in the Charter, we should address that. It's highly unusual for an ICANN WG to have a proposal that requires external approvals, so if this is not contemplated in the Charter, it's because the current situation was not foreseen.

If you think our work is done, other than answering questions, and that the implementation should be left to "other people," that's fine. Others have proposed extending the CWG, or believe that our mandate is broad enough to cover further activity without an extension or charter revision.

But between the CWG, the ICG and ICANN, there needs to be some understanding of who those other people are, and how they well turn our blueprints into a structure that actually exists.

If we wipe our hands and walk away, because the proposal is now in the ICG's hands, we might as well never have started in the first place.

Greg

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:48:59PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: > that is the case, we have not discussed whether the CWG/IRT will provide > "terms of reference" for those bylaws, whether CWG/IRT and outside counsel > will review drafts of these articles and bylaws, etc.

Is that within the charter? I'm not sure. My reading of the charter is that the goal was to produce a proposal. It has been produced, because it's shipped. That's the only top-line deliverable, in my reading.

There are two further items, which involve interaction with the ICG.

I don't see anything in the charter about proposals for the implementation and so on. I could easily be mistaken, however.

This is the charter I was reading:

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Charter

Best regards,

A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

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

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Speaking as another participant, not member, I don't think it should be too hard to get chartering SOs and ACs to approve a plan for providing some CWG representation throughout the implementation phase. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:07 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director Hi, On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 04:45:38PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:

some fashion. If we act like implementation is "not our problem," because it's not within the four corners of our charter, we are creating a problem, not solving one.

If the CWG (and I note, I'm not a member, but just a participant, so I don't have a vote) acts beyond its mandate, however, that also seems to create a problem, no -- one of legitimacy, I'd guess. In other places where I'm active (like the free software community), the answer to this sort of institutional question is, "Here's my code/idea/patch, I don't care about the formalities" or something like that. But ICANN doesn't appear to work that way, which is the reason I even asked the question.

If we wipe our hands and walk away, because the proposal is now in the ICG's hands, we might as well never have started in the first place.

I don't see how that follows from anything you said, and anyway I wasn't suggesting the CWG do that. The CWG has a formal responsibility to be available to deal with the ICG, so it can't just pack up its tent. But the additional items people are talking about do not, as nearly as I can tell, fall within the CWG's remit. If someone wants to change that, I suggest it needs to be put to the chartering organizations lest they ask why the CWG is off undertaking work it was never asked to do. This isn't to say those are not important issues. But it's been painfully clear to me during some of the discussion in this group that my intuition about what to do when one spots an important issue is not the same as that of others within ICANN. From where I sit, within the ICANN community it seems to be fairly important to be explicitly chartered to do something before you undertake it. This is of course just my personal opinion, and if the CWG doesn't agree with me I imagine I'll find some way to lull myself to sleep! But it does seem to me that one ought to attend to questions of legitimacy in this process. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

If we consider the recommendations of the GNSO Policy & Implementation WG, it is good to have some continuity from the policy development WG during the implementation phase. That doesn’t mean that the full WG needs to continue but it probably would be good to plan for that. It could be done several ways such as ensuring that the chairs would make themselves available as resources during implementation or possibly by forming a small representative group of volunteers along with the chairs and staff who would monitor implementation to ensure that implementation is consistent with the policy recommendations. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:12 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director I agree with Greg on this one. The cwg proposal at the moment does not contain specific details like exact composition of PTI board, content of the bylaw et all. The numbers community are actually doing something similar, by creating the SLA content, review committee charter et all. I would also say the IETF are doing same based on the attempt to update the agreement in recognition of the IANAplan proposal. Whether the cwg charter specifically allow/prohibits working on implementation is another thing. However I don't see indicating those details in our proposal as implementation but actual part of the proposal. Implementation to me would be after NTIA has signed off and the direction given by content of the proposal comes to action. It will be good to determine if cwg would still be required by then. Personally I don't think it should, however I think it may make sense that ICG remain during that period. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Jul 2015 21:46, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Andrew, As I mentioned, these could be handled by an Implementation Review Team working in conjunction with staff, which is the current GNSO approach to dealing with post-WG issues. Furthermore, we have clearly heard the message that this proposal is not going to succeed in getting the NTIA and Congressional approvals it needs if implementation is not factored in in some fashion. If we act like implementation is "not our problem," because it's not within the four corners of our charter, we are creating a problem, not solving one. In any event, we have discussed the need for the CWG to remain in place not only to interact with the ICG, but to be available to respond to inquiries from the NTIA and Congress. If that's not contemplated in the Charter, we should address that. It's highly unusual for an ICANN WG to have a proposal that requires external approvals, so if this is not contemplated in the Charter, it's because the current situation was not foreseen. If you think our work is done, other than answering questions, and that the implementation should be left to "other people," that's fine. Others have proposed extending the CWG, or believe that our mandate is broad enough to cover further activity without an extension or charter revision. But between the CWG, the ICG and ICANN, there needs to be some understanding of who those other people are, and how they well turn our blueprints into a structure that actually exists. If we wipe our hands and walk away, because the proposal is now in the ICG's hands, we might as well never have started in the first place. Greg On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:48:59PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:

that is the case, we have not discussed whether the CWG/IRT will provide "terms of reference" for those bylaws, whether CWG/IRT and outside counsel will review drafts of these articles and bylaws, etc.

Is that within the charter? I'm not sure. My reading of the charter is that the goal was to produce a proposal. It has been produced, because it's shipped. That's the only top-line deliverable, in my reading. There are two further items, which involve interaction with the ICG. I don't see anything in the charter about proposals for the implementation and so on. I could easily be mistaken, however. This is the charter I was reading: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Charter Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship