March 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Board comments on CCWG Proposal
by Chris Disspain March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

Thanks Paul. My techies will be delighted. There's nothing they like more than not doing anything. 😀 Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator > On 17 Mar 2016, at 19:50, Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane(a)icb.co.uk> wrote: > > Chris > > It's not your end - I think ICANN have recently fixed their mailing list > server(s) and their mailq is emptying. > > After a period of no mail, I am receiving CWG emails from January and > February, once the queue is empty (within a day or two) everything > should be in sync. > > Your techies don't need to do anything! > > Best > > Paul > > >> On 17/03/16 08:31, Chris Disspain wrote: >> All, >> >> There is obviously some issue going on with mail servers somewhere as >> the below emails have just arrived from many months ago. I have no idea >> what is causing the problem but my technical folks are checking at our >> end. Apologies for the inconvenience. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer >> .au Domain Administration Ltd >> T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 >> E: ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au >> <http://www.auda.org.au> >> >> auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator >> >> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> *From:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> >>>> *Date:* March 17, 2016 at 06:53:48 GMT >>>> *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> >>>> *Cc:* ccTLD Community List <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>>> <mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>>, ccNSO Members >>>> <ccnso-members(a)icann.org <mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>>, >>>> <cctldworld(a)icann.org <mailto:cctldworld@icann.org>> >>>> *Subject:* *Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Board comments on >>>> CCWG Proposal* >>>> >>>> Chris, >>>> >>>> Thank you, I shall read after transit. >>>> >>>> >>>> But, why am I not surprised? >>>> >>>> el >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5c >>>> >>>> On 14 Dec 2015, at 11:57, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au >>>> <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello All, >>>>> >>>>> You will probably by now have seen that the Board has submitted some >>>>> comments in respect to the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal >>>>> and an accompanying letter from Steve Crocker. In case you haven’t >>>>> seen these yet, they are attached. >>>>> >>>>> I thought it was important, as a ccNSO elected member of the Board, >>>>> to write to you to explain the background to these comments and >>>>> offer to discuss them with you at your convenience. >>>>> >>>>> I am writing personally and not at the behest of the Board nor to >>>>> provide you with input/comment from the Board. These are my personal >>>>> opinions about where I think the Board is at, their motivation (and >>>>> mine) for making the comments and what some of the comments might mean. >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion, the Board is 100% supportive of the transition and >>>>> filled with admiration for the work and effort of those involved in >>>>> the CCWG. The Board believes that there are a number of areas of >>>>> concern in the report that need to be dealt with. I stress that >>>>> these are concerns of the Board as a whole. They are not concerns of >>>>> staff that have simply been agreed to by the Board but rather >>>>> concerns that the Board has expressed. Whilst the comment document >>>>> has been drafted by staff (as has the draft proposal from the CCWG) >>>>> this has been done at the direction of the Board and the full Board >>>>> has unanimously endorsed the comments. >>>>> >>>>> Some of these areas of concern can be characterised as ‘might it be >>>>> better if’ areas but a small number are of higher concern. The Board >>>>> has carefully considered these and provided detailed comment >>>>> together with suggestions for dealing with the problem(s) that >>>>> the Board perceives. There may be other solutions to the problems >>>>> and the Board is not tied to its suggested solution. >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion, the Board believes that if these higher concern >>>>> recommendations (or parts thereof) are not dealt with then when the >>>>> Board applies the global public interest test, in accordance with >>>>> its resolution of 16 October 2014 >>>>> (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>), >>>>> there is a significant chance that the Board will find that some of >>>>> those recommendations do not meet that test. >>>>> >>>>> I fully endorse the Board comments and I believe that it is in all >>>>> of our best interests as ccTLD managers to take them into account. I >>>>> encourage you to carefully consider the CCWG recommendations and the >>>>> comments of the Board and to provide your input to the ccNSO >>>>> Council. I fully respect that some of you will not agree with all >>>>> (or any!) of the comments of the Board but hope that, given my role >>>>> and my commitment to the ccNSO and ccTLDs generally, you will >>>>> understand that these comments are well intentioned and made in an >>>>> effort to solve real issues with the current CCWG draft. >>>>> >>>>> I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the >>>>> transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and >>>>> ‘transition at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance, in my view. I >>>>> know the time line is important but I would rather miss a deadline >>>>> than not deal with the very real concerns of a group of 19 >>>>> experienced individuals who have been nominated or elected to >>>>> the Board to serve the ICANN community and to act in their best >>>>> interests. >>>>> >>>>> I will be delighted to answer any questions (on or off list) and to >>>>> talk to you one-on-one or as a group. I stand ready to do whatever >>>>> it takes to get a CCWG Final Report out to NTIA as soon as possible. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chris Disspain| Chief Executive Officer >>>>> >>>>> .au Domain Administration Ltd >>>>> >>>>> T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 >>>>> >>>>> E: ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W:www.auda.org.au >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.auda.org.au_&d=CwMF…> >>>>> >>>>> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <14-DEC-15-Board Comments to CCWG[1][3].pdf> >>>>> <20151214 Comments on CCWG Report_SCrocker[7].pdf> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >>>> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>>> <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmanag… >>>> >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >>>> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org >>>> <mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cctldworld mailing list >> Cctldworld(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld >>

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Board comments on CCWG Proposal
by Chris Disspain March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

All, There is obviously some issue going on with mail servers somewhere as the below emails have just arrived from many months ago. I have no idea what is causing the problem but my technical folks are checking at our end. Apologies for the inconvenience. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na> >> Date: March 17, 2016 at 06:53:48 GMT >> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >> Cc: ccTLD Community List <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org>, ccNSO Members <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>, <cctldworld(a)icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Board comments on CCWG Proposal >> Chris, >> >> Thank you, I shall read after transit. >> >> >> But, why am I not surprised? >> >> el >> >> -- >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5c >> >> On 14 Dec 2015, at 11:57, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: >> >>> Hello All, >>> >>> You will probably by now have seen that the Board has submitted some comments in respect to the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal and an accompanying letter from Steve Crocker. In case you haven’t seen these yet, they are attached. >>> >>> I thought it was important, as a ccNSO elected member of the Board, to write to you to explain the background to these comments and offer to discuss them with you at your convenience. >>> >>> I am writing personally and not at the behest of the Board nor to provide you with input/comment from the Board. These are my personal opinions about where I think the Board is at, their motivation (and mine) for making the comments and what some of the comments might mean. >>> >>> In my opinion, the Board is 100% supportive of the transition and filled with admiration for the work and effort of those involved in the CCWG. The Board believes that there are a number of areas of concern in the report that need to be dealt with. I stress that these are concerns of the Board as a whole. They are not concerns of staff that have simply been agreed to by the Board but rather concerns that the Board has expressed. Whilst the comment document has been drafted by staff (as has the draft proposal from the CCWG) this has been done at the direction of the Board and the full Board has unanimously endorsed the comments. >>> >>> Some of these areas of concern can be characterised as ‘might it be better if’ areas but a small number are of higher concern. The Board has carefully considered these and provided detailed comment together with suggestions for dealing with the problem(s) that the Board perceives. There may be other solutions to the problems and the Board is not tied to its suggested solution. >>> >>> In my opinion, the Board believes that if these higher concern recommendations (or parts thereof) are not dealt with then when the Board applies the global public interest test, in accordance with its resolution of 16 October 2014 (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d) there is a significant chance that the Board will find that some of those recommendations do not meet that test. >>> >>> I fully endorse the Board comments and I believe that it is in all of our best interests as ccTLD managers to take them into account. I encourage you to carefully consider the CCWG recommendations and the comments of the Board and to provide your input to the ccNSO Council. I fully respect that some of you will not agree with all (or any!) of the comments of the Board but hope that, given my role and my commitment to the ccNSO and ccTLDs generally, you will understand that these comments are well intentioned and made in an effort to solve real issues with the current CCWG draft. >>> >>> I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and ‘transition at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance, in my view. I know the time line is important but I would rather miss a deadline than not deal with the very real concerns of a group of 19 experienced individuals who have been nominated or elected to the Board to serve the ICANN community and to act in their best interests. >>> >>> I will be delighted to answer any questions (on or off list) and to talk to you one-on-one or as a group. I stand ready to do whatever it takes to get a CCWG Final Report out to NTIA as soon as possible. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer >>> >>> .au Domain Administration Ltd >>> >>> T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 >>> >>> E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au >>> >>> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator >>> >>> <14-DEC-15-Board Comments to CCWG[1][3].pdf> >>> <20151214 Comments on CCWG Report_SCrocker[7].pdf> >> _______________________________________________ >> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmanag… >> >> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org

5 5

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Board comments on CCWG Proposal
by Chris Disspain March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

Thanks Paul. My techies will be delighted. There's nothing they like more than not doing anything. 😀 Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator > On 17 Mar 2016, at 19:50, Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane(a)icb.co.uk> wrote: > > Chris > > It's not your end - I think ICANN have recently fixed their mailing list > server(s) and their mailq is emptying. > > After a period of no mail, I am receiving CWG emails from January and > February, once the queue is empty (within a day or two) everything > should be in sync. > > Your techies don't need to do anything! > > Best > > Paul > > >> On 17/03/16 08:31, Chris Disspain wrote: >> All, >> >> There is obviously some issue going on with mail servers somewhere as >> the below emails have just arrived from many months ago. I have no idea >> what is causing the problem but my technical folks are checking at our >> end. Apologies for the inconvenience. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer >> .au Domain Administration Ltd >> T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 >> E: ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au >> <http://www.auda.org.au> >> >> auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator >> >> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> *From:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> >>>> *Date:* March 17, 2016 at 06:53:48 GMT >>>> *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> >>>> *Cc:* ccTLD Community List <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>>> <mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>>, ccNSO Members >>>> <ccnso-members(a)icann.org <mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>>, >>>> <cctldworld(a)icann.org <mailto:cctldworld@icann.org>> >>>> *Subject:* *Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Board comments on >>>> CCWG Proposal* >>>> >>>> Chris, >>>> >>>> Thank you, I shall read after transit. >>>> >>>> >>>> But, why am I not surprised? >>>> >>>> el >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5c >>>> >>>> On 14 Dec 2015, at 11:57, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au >>>> <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello All, >>>>> >>>>> You will probably by now have seen that the Board has submitted some >>>>> comments in respect to the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal >>>>> and an accompanying letter from Steve Crocker. In case you haven’t >>>>> seen these yet, they are attached. >>>>> >>>>> I thought it was important, as a ccNSO elected member of the Board, >>>>> to write to you to explain the background to these comments and >>>>> offer to discuss them with you at your convenience. >>>>> >>>>> I am writing personally and not at the behest of the Board nor to >>>>> provide you with input/comment from the Board. These are my personal >>>>> opinions about where I think the Board is at, their motivation (and >>>>> mine) for making the comments and what some of the comments might mean. >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion, the Board is 100% supportive of the transition and >>>>> filled with admiration for the work and effort of those involved in >>>>> the CCWG. The Board believes that there are a number of areas of >>>>> concern in the report that need to be dealt with. I stress that >>>>> these are concerns of the Board as a whole. They are not concerns of >>>>> staff that have simply been agreed to by the Board but rather >>>>> concerns that the Board has expressed. Whilst the comment document >>>>> has been drafted by staff (as has the draft proposal from the CCWG) >>>>> this has been done at the direction of the Board and the full Board >>>>> has unanimously endorsed the comments. >>>>> >>>>> Some of these areas of concern can be characterised as ‘might it be >>>>> better if’ areas but a small number are of higher concern. The Board >>>>> has carefully considered these and provided detailed comment >>>>> together with suggestions for dealing with the problem(s) that >>>>> the Board perceives. There may be other solutions to the problems >>>>> and the Board is not tied to its suggested solution. >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion, the Board believes that if these higher concern >>>>> recommendations (or parts thereof) are not dealt with then when the >>>>> Board applies the global public interest test, in accordance with >>>>> its resolution of 16 October 2014 >>>>> (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>), >>>>> there is a significant chance that the Board will find that some of >>>>> those recommendations do not meet that test. >>>>> >>>>> I fully endorse the Board comments and I believe that it is in all >>>>> of our best interests as ccTLD managers to take them into account. I >>>>> encourage you to carefully consider the CCWG recommendations and the >>>>> comments of the Board and to provide your input to the ccNSO >>>>> Council. I fully respect that some of you will not agree with all >>>>> (or any!) of the comments of the Board but hope that, given my role >>>>> and my commitment to the ccNSO and ccTLDs generally, you will >>>>> understand that these comments are well intentioned and made in an >>>>> effort to solve real issues with the current CCWG draft. >>>>> >>>>> I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the >>>>> transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and >>>>> ‘transition at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance, in my view. I >>>>> know the time line is important but I would rather miss a deadline >>>>> than not deal with the very real concerns of a group of 19 >>>>> experienced individuals who have been nominated or elected to >>>>> the Board to serve the ICANN community and to act in their best >>>>> interests. >>>>> >>>>> I will be delighted to answer any questions (on or off list) and to >>>>> talk to you one-on-one or as a group. I stand ready to do whatever >>>>> it takes to get a CCWG Final Report out to NTIA as soon as possible. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chris Disspain| Chief Executive Officer >>>>> >>>>> .au Domain Administration Ltd >>>>> >>>>> T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 >>>>> >>>>> E: ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W:www.auda.org.au >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.auda.org.au_&d=CwMF…> >>>>> >>>>> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <14-DEC-15-Board Comments to CCWG[1][3].pdf> >>>>> <20151214 Comments on CCWG Report_SCrocker[7].pdf> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >>>> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>>> <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmanag… >>>> >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >>>> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org >>>> <mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cctldworld mailing list >> Cctldworld(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld >> _______________________________________________ Cctldworld mailing list Cctldworld(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld Cheers, Chris

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] Board comments on CCWG Proposal
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

Chris, Thank you, I shall read after transit. But, why am I not surprised? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5c > On 14 Dec 2015, at 11:57, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: > > Hello All, > > You will probably by now have seen that the Board has submitted some comments in respect to the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal and an accompanying letter from Steve Crocker. In case you haven’t seen these yet, they are attached. > > I thought it was important, as a ccNSO elected member of the Board, to write to you to explain the background to these comments and offer to discuss them with you at your convenience. > > I am writing personally and not at the behest of the Board nor to provide you with input/comment from the Board. These are my personal opinions about where I think the Board is at, their motivation (and mine) for making the comments and what some of the comments might mean. > > In my opinion, the Board is 100% supportive of the transition and filled with admiration for the work and effort of those involved in the CCWG. The Board believes that there are a number of areas of concern in the report that need to be dealt with. I stress that these are concerns of the Board as a whole. They are not concerns of staff that have simply been agreed to by the Board but rather concerns that the Board has expressed. Whilst the comment document has been drafted by staff (as has the draft proposal from the CCWG) this has been done at the direction of the Board and the full Board has unanimously endorsed the comments. > > Some of these areas of concern can be characterised as ‘might it be better if’ areas but a small number are of higher concern. The Board has carefully considered these and provided detailed comment together with suggestions for dealing with the problem(s) that the Board perceives. There may be other solutions to the problems and the Board is not tied to its suggested solution. > > In my opinion, the Board believes that if these higher concern recommendations (or parts thereof) are not dealt with then when the Board applies the global public interest test, in accordance with its resolution of 16 October 2014 (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d) there is a significant chance that the Board will find that some of those recommendations do not meet that test. > > I fully endorse the Board comments and I believe that it is in all of our best interests as ccTLD managers to take them into account. I encourage you to carefully consider the CCWG recommendations and the comments of the Board and to provide your input to the ccNSO Council. I fully respect that some of you will not agree with all (or any!) of the comments of the Board but hope that, given my role and my commitment to the ccNSO and ccTLDs generally, you will understand that these comments are well intentioned and made in an effort to solve real issues with the current CCWG draft. > > I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and ‘transition at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance, in my view. I know the time line is important but I would rather miss a deadline than not deal with the very real concerns of a group of 19 experienced individuals who have been nominated or elected to the Board to serve the ICANN community and to act in their best interests. > > I will be delighted to answer any questions (on or off list) and to talk to you one-on-one or as a group. I stand ready to do whatever it takes to get a CCWG Final Report out to NTIA as soon as possible. > > Cheers, > > > Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer > > .au Domain Administration Ltd > > T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 > > E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au > > auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator > > > > > > > > <14-DEC-15-Board Comments to CCWG[1][3].pdf> > <20151214 Comments on CCWG Report_SCrocker[7].pdf>

1 0

ICANN Board comments - Recommendation 3 - Fundamental Bylaws
by Bruce Tonkin March 16, 2016

March 16, 2016

Hello All, On the Fundamental Bylaws (Recommendation 3), the Board has the following comment following the first reading: The Board is supportive of the changes reflected in the document after the first reading. The Board notes that while it is supportive of the inspection right being reflected as a Fundamental Bylaw, the inspection right should be noted as a right of the community, and not of the Sole Designator, to align with the Board's comments on Recommendation 1. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG

14 42

Timeline for WS1 Bylaws
by Mathieu Weill March 15, 2016

March 15, 2016

Hello everyone, This is a brief update on the next steps for our work on drafting bylaws to implement the CCWG report. The timeline is tight. Read on to see why. At our meeting on Friday we discussed the iterative approach for bylaws drafting, with the co-chairs and rapporteurs forming a first line triage team to check consistency between the draft Bylaws and the CCWG Final Report. Then the documents will be public for CCWG scrutiny and comment before being updated. We didn't have a view about timing on Friday other than that it would have to be soon. Now we have some more information on that. We co-chairs were joined by rapporteurs at a dinner on Monday night which included CWG reps, Board members and ICANN staff. The purpose was to make sure the implementation process is well coordinated between the groups in the coming weeks. Larry Strickling was at the dinner, and he set out his thoughts about timeframes. An important piece of information from him was that the N.T.I.A. won't complete its review and assessment of the proposal until the bylaws that implement them are in place (with commencement happening post-transition). NTIA has said publicly that it plans to complete its report within about 90 days of receiving the Stewardship and Accountability proposals on 10 March, presuming that the Chartering Organisations approve our proposal. That is because they wish to give the U.S. Congress a suitable period of time to consider their report before the Congress goes into recess for the summer on 15 July. Taking these two points together, it means we need to fit the following steps and *rough* dates together: Friday 8 April: CCWG finishes draft bylaws then Board approves draft bylaws for public comment Friday 15 April: Open Public Comment for bylaws Sunday 15 May: Close Public Comment for bylaws then Follow up changes to draft Bylaws based on public comments and CCWG sign off of final draft bylaws Tuesday 31 May: Board approves draft bylaws In our view, this timeframe is tight but manageable. We are in discussion with our external Counsel about how to progress the draft Bylaws over the next couple of weeks. They have some ideas that include intensive discussions with ICANN legal, who know the bylaws well, and will be working on the quick production of a first draft set of bylaws. The Implementation Oversight Team will do a very rapid turnaround on the draft, and get it out to you asap, along with a note from our lawyers to confirm compliance with our report. Our intention is that there is at least four days and preferably a week for review and comments for CCWG members and participants. Then the draft bylaws will be finalised taking those comments into account, and given to the Board who we expect will rapidly put them out for public comment. It's important for us all to see this as a translation exercise: turning our Proposal into Bylaws. Because of the work we have all done, the intention of the Proposal is clear. Turning that into draft Bylaws language should be reasonably straightforward, and if there are areas of dispute and disagreement, they should be few. We will have the chance to discuss this schedule at our implementation meeting on Thursday, but we invite you to consider the draft schedule above, the realities driving it, and to discuss all this in the lead up to our meeting. Best, Mathieu, Thomas and Leon.

5 4

NTIA Statement and more
by Seun Ojedeji March 13, 2016

March 13, 2016

The following url could be of interest: NTIA Statement: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/reviewing-iana-transition-proposal Congressional hearing: https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings-and-votes/hearings/privatizing-in… Well the multistakeholder community has done it's part. Fingers crossed. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

5 5

Three Men of La Mancha
by Jonathan Zuck March 12, 2016

March 12, 2016

They dreamt the impossible dream four rappateurs at their side To bear unbearable blowhards Their plans, always being maligned To write, the unwriteable text To feel, unloved and alone To try, when their eyes are too bleary to talk, hours more on the phone this was their quest to finalize text no matter how hopeless despite the unrest to fight for the right when Jones Day bared their claws to be willing to march into GAC for an uncomfortable clause and ICANN will be better for this that three men each worn and losing his mind still strove, with his last ounce of courage to get, this thing finally signed Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association

6 7

Sent to NTIA: IANA Stewardship Transition and the Affirmation of Commitments
by Bruce Tonkin March 11, 2016

March 11, 2016

From: Steve Crocker Date: March 10, 2016 at 6:20:58 PM GMT Subject: IANA Stewardship Transition and the Affirmation of Commitments The Honorable Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information and Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration United States Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20230 Re: IANA Stewardship Transition and the Affirmation of Commitments Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling: On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors it gives me great pleasure to transmit to you the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal, which outlines the transition of NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. I am also pleased to transmit the CCWG Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. In its 14 March 2014 announcement, NTIA asked ICANN to convene an inclusive, global discussion to determine a process for transitioning the stewardship of these functions to the multistakeholder community. It specifically stated that the transition proposal must have broad community support and address the following four principles: 1. Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; 2. Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; 3. Meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and, 4. Maintain the openness of the Internet. NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces NTIA’s role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Thirty individuals, representing the broad range of Internet stakeholder interests, were nominated by their respective communities to become a part of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). The ICG assembled input from three global multistakeholder communities with direct operational relationships with the IANA functions – Domain Names, Numbering Resources, and Protocol Parameters – to develop one single, cohesive proposal to facilitate the succession of NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions. The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), made up of members from ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and over 200 participants, developed a separate proposal for enhancing ICANN’s accountability in light of the changing historical relationship with the U.S. Government. The proposals underwent extensive discussion and enjoy broad global community support. The relevant multistakeholder communities held over 600 calls and meetings with more than 32,000 mailing list exchanges over the past two years . The ICG proposal was finalized after the three operational communities of the IANA functions indicated consensus support for the proposal. The CCWG-Accountability proposal received consensus support from its members and was subsequently approved by the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees which chartered the group. The proposals themselves describe at great length how their recommendations meet all of NTIA’s criteria. The ICANN Board agrees with the community that the proposals do in fact meet each of NTIA’s criteria. The ICANN Board resolutions for the package address each of the proposals. As you conduct your review of the package of proposals, please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. , The ICANN multistakeholder community eagerly awaits the results of your review. Sincerely, Dr. Stephen Crocker Enclosures: • Cover Page for IANA Stewardship Transition Package • Cover Note from Dr. Stephen Crocker • ICANN Board Resolution on IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal • ICANN Board Resolution on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Recommendations • IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Proposal • Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG- Accountability) Proposal • IANA Stewardship Transition Timeline • Diversity and Statistics on Development of IANA Stewardship Transition Package

1 0

Fwd: Transmittal of CCWG-Accountability Report to the ICANN Board
by Thomas Rickert March 11, 2016

March 11, 2016

10 March 2016 Dr. Stephen Crocker, Chair ICANN Board of Directors Dear ICANN Board of Directors, Following the submission on the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Work Stream 1 Report to its Chartering Organizations on 23 February 2016, we are pleased to announce that transmittal of the report has been approved by all six organizations. Each of the Chartering Organizations’ approval and statement is recorded as follows, in order received: Security and Stability Advisory Committee <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011…> (SSAC) Address Supporting Organization <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011…> (ASO) At-Large Advisory Committee <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011…> (ALAC) Governmental Advisory Committee <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011…> (GAC) Generic Names Supporting Organization <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011…> (GNSO) Country Codes Names Supporting Organisation <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011…> (ccNSO)[1] <x-msg://160/#_ftn1> In addition, the CWG-Stewardship certified <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/…> that the CCWG-Accountability has met the dependencies on which their proposal was expressly conditioned, thus allowing the IANA Stewardship Transition (as a whole) to proceed. The report is the result of extensive work by the CCWG-Accountability’s 28 members, 175 participants and a team of highly qualified legal advisors since December 2014, which included over 221 calls or meetings, 3 public consultations and more than 13,900 email messages. It represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, specific legal advice, and significant compromises by all who participated and includes diligent attention to the input received through the Public Comment proceedings. Prior to submitting to the Chartering Organizations for their approval, the Work Stream 1 Report received the consensus support within the CCWG-Accountability itself, with five minority statements recorded in Appendix A of our Report, and available here <https://community.icann.org/x/0ReAAw>. With the sign off by the Chartering Organizations of this report, the CCWG-Accountability is pleased to transmit this report to the Board as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process. We are available to you in order to answer any questions you may have and to explain any details of the proposal. For your information, comprehensive further background documents and reference materials are available here <https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>. Thomas, Mathieu, and Leon CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs [1] <x-msg://160/#_ftnref1> In accordance to the rules of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-rules-dec04-en.pdf <http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-rules-dec04-en.pdf>), the decisions in this resolution will become effective seven days after publication of these decisions by the Council. For the interim, the chair of the ccNSO is requested to inform the ICANN Board of the decision of the ccNSO Council under the assumption the decision is effective and subsequently, after seven (7) days, whether these decision has become effective.

9 8