*Action item* : Does anyone object or feel strongly differently about the provisional conclusion that there is no need for structural neutrality which would require the creation of a new trust? SO: Hello, Though I joined the call (via audio) but left very early due to other engagement. I like to know whether the first action item above was a consensus call during the meeting? If yes, I think it's important to note the outcome. Also, it's not stated when the action item question would be finally decided upon and considered closed. For the record I agree with the conclusion posed and look forward to a time when it will no longer be provisional. Regards On 12 Jan 2016 7:45 p.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #74 on 12 January 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/V4xlAw

A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.

Kind regards,

Brenda

[image: ---] *Action Items*

*Action item* : Does anyone object or feel strongly differently about the provisional conclusion that there is no need for structural neutrality which would require the creation of a new trust?

*Action item: * Cross-Operational Coordinating Group to refine DT-IPR work based on the provisional conclusion and report back to the CWG-Stewardship.

*Action item* : Discuss within Cross-Operational Coordination Group whether the mailing list can become publicly archived.

*Action item:* Suzanne Woolf to inform the ICANN Board on the status of this discussion.

*Action item* : Share proposed responses to questions with CWG-Stewardship and Sidley for review

*Action item* : Review remaining questions that were not assigned to specific DT and determine how to respond *Notes*

Audio only: Eduardo Diaz, Alan Greenberg

*1. Opening Remarks*

· Packed agenda, so need to stick to time

· Desire to make progress on IPR issue in order to catch up with other operational communities

· Update on latest work of the CCWG-Accountability as it relates to the interdepencies

· DT-Leads have made progress on Bylaw related questions - may need to be picked up on list and forthcoming call depending on time available

· CRISP Team members will be joining the call to provide input on IANA IPR discussion

*2. Implementation Update*

· See slides presented during the meeting (see also https://community.icann.org/x/V4xlAw)

· Members of RZERC are chairman of ICANN Board, member of RSSAC, SSAC, rep from IETF, senior IANA manager, RySG rep, ccTLD rep, ASO rep and Root Zone Maintainer (see specification in CWG-Proposal)

· Implementation update will be regular item on future calls

3. IANA IPR

· Original proposal was silent on this issue and expected to be dealt with as part of implementation

· CRISP Proposal suggested that IETF Trust would take on IPR - CWG-Stewardship asked to confirm its view on this proposal

· Design Team formed to review and discuss - output was shared prior to the previous meeting and briefly discussed

· CWG-Stewardship Chairs have co-ordinated with other groups on progress being made

· Timeliness of CWG-Stewardship is important - other communities are expecting a response (both other communities support the CRISP proposal)

· DT-IPR Draft contains potential principles and requirements for owner of IANA Trademarks and Domain Names. DT-IPR didn't agree on single definition of 'neutral' (see principle 1) - two types identified structural neutrality and functional neutrality.

· Progress needs to be made on some of the key decision points outlined in this document. Definition of neutrality is one of the critical questions that affects other questions outlined in the document.

· Risk analysis is missing - what happens if everything falls apart? Least of concern will be trademark and domain names in the overall scheme of things. IETF is main group that has operational need for the domain name.

· Neutrality discussions seems to imply that communities have opposite interests which is not in line with the reality. Is there any evidence / rationale for which the owner needs to be neutral to mediate between the other communities which may be at odds?

· IPR solution needs to be in place by September in order for the transition to happen - need to decide which risk we are willing to take and what is practical. Transfer may not actually need to happen, but agreement on arrangement will need to be in place. View of ICANN Board may also be helpful.

· Important to have free and full discussion around the topic to ensure that will of naming community is known.

· Is too much time spent on this issue as path forward seems to have been identified that addresses concerns. IPR issue only becomes an issue when PTI fails to deliver service to the different communities. Higher priority should be given to the SLEs.

· Focus should be on procedure to deal with rare cases of disputes.

· Provisional conclusion that there is no need for structural neutrality which would require a new trust. Second reading of this topic expected for an upcoming meeting.

· Are any further decision points needed or does the focus shift now to the practical arrangements? IETF Trust now becomes the only option - need to look specifically at how to set up relationships and review example terms provided by the IETF.

*Action item* : Does anyone object or feel strongly differently about the provisional conclusion that there is no need for structural neutrality which would require the creation of a new trust?

*Action item: * Cross-Operational Coordinating Group to refine DT-IPR work based on the provisional conclusion and report back to the CWG-Stewardship.

*Action item* : Discuss within Cross-Operational Coordination Group whether the mailing list can become publicly archived.

*Action item:* Suzanne Woolf to inform the ICANN Board on the status of this discussion.

*4. CCWG-Accountability *

· Calls on a regular basis between CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Chairs

· Call earlier this week to discuss the status of the input provided by the CWG-Stewardship on the dependencies

· Meeting twice a week for 3 hours, no current timeline for delivery of the final proposal by the ICANN Board.

· New workplan shared on the mailing list, which includes work on the CWG-Stewardship input.

· CCWG-Accountability Chairs will share feedback on discussion of dependencies and input received from CWG-Stewardship following first reading which will require discussion on the list in order to be able to provide input, if any, prior to the second reading. Update will also be provided on the calls, but CWG-Stewardship will need to work proactively in order to not delay the CCWG-Accountability in its deliberations.

*5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG *

· Sidley prepared a draft of the Bylaws resulting from the CWG-Stewardship proposal. A number of questions were identified which were referred to the relevant 3 sub-team leads. First drafts have been received from the sub-team leads - all contained in same document.

· Avri (DT-N): reviewed all of the comments related to DT-N and shared first draft of responses with the DT-N mailing list. No major issues identified that required structural changes.

· Chuck (DT-M): provided responses to questions relating to DT M and shared those with the DT. No feedback so far. Full feedback is now required from the CWG-Stewardship and Sidley.

· Donna (DT-C): reviewed questions, but DT CSC only has one other remaining member left. Full review now required by CWG-Stewardship and Sidley. CWG-Stewardship should be able to review revised Bylaws to ensure these accurately reflect the responses provided.

· Some further work may be needed on questions

*Action item* : Share proposed responses to questions with CWG-Stewardship and Sidley for review

*Action item* : Review remaining questions that were not assigned to specific DT and determine how to respond

*6. AOB *

· Next meetings scheduled for Thursday 21 January and 4 February

· Replacement of Staffan Jonson as ccNSO appointed member - ccNSO is in the process of selecting a substitute representative. Probably by the next meeting a replacement will be identified.

· Currently no CWG-Stewardship meetings scheduled in Marrakech

· No intention to let biweekly call schedule lull work on IPR into a slower pace

· Prepare to get active on the mailing list

*7. Closing Remarks*

· Next meeting scheduled for 21

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