October 2016 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 7, 2016

Oct. 7, 2016

Hello Leon, Thanks for your comment, I don't think commenting on the budget alone will be enough. I will suggest that while we comment on the budget, we should also be explicitly clear on our position about jurisdiction. Apart from the fact that the current scope would actually contribute significantly to the legal fees later, going beyond the scope will not only increase the cost but also waste volunteers time. I have no idea why we need to discuss ICANN incorporation at this time; it's just a very wrong time to do such and could send very wrong signals. Overall we can't restrict/control freedom of speech, what is important is that it is clear to the sub-groups what outcome is expected from them. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Oct 2016 02:45, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: Hi all, If I am reading correctly, I think Alan’s, Tijani's and Sebastian's thoughts are aligned. The only thing to do is to draft a position that reflects this thoughts, with which I agree by the way, and have it vote by the ALAC. I cannot offer to draft the position but I will be glad to contribute. I also think it is important that we signal towards not widening the scope of the jurisdiction group and if establishing a budget constrain is the way to do it, then I would support it. Best regards, León El 06/10/2016, a las 16:38, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn> escribió: Dear all, Here is my proposal for the ALAC motion regarding the CCWG WS2 Budget: *The At-Large Advisory Committee hereby accepts the proposed CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget, as well as the cost-control processes presented in conjunction with the CCWG budget,* ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Le 6 oct. 2016 à 09:45, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> a écrit : Hello, See in Tijani mail. Thanks SeB Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> De : <alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn> Date : jeudi 6 octobre 2016 09:45 À : Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> Cc : ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Objet : Re: [ALAC] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion Good morning Alan, First of all, I don’t think that it is wise to support or comment on another chartering organization (GNSO) statement regarding the budget approval of the CCWG. It is our duty and our right to give our own statement since we are also a chartering organization, exactly like the GNSO. Let’s do it. That said, I find the point 5 of the GNSO statement absolutely not acceptable. It means that the GNSO is deciding on the Jurisdiction sub-group outcome. No it is not. It is time for the chartering org to take some action if needed. And this one is important. I think it is useful that we discuss this issue and give clear guidance to WS2 and sub-groups. It must be an ALAC/At-Large decision. If we want the WS2 to deliver on time, clarifying some issue (like jurisdiction) by the WS2 plenary or the Chartering organizations can be useful. Let me remind everyone that the Jurisdiction sub-group has a precise and binding list of tasks provided by annex 12 of the CCWG WS1 final report that has been adopted by the whole CCWG and ratified by the whole charting organizations. it is not the right of the GNSO or any other party to take of the table one of those tasks. Not one but if we have an agreement from all the chattering org, why not? I understand their point (and the one of Alan), but they have to act from inside the Jurisdiction sub-group as they are numerous there to make the subgroup not ask for legal advices for the first layer of jurisdiction concerning the incorporation and the location of ICANN. Finaly, I’m of the opinion of ALAC not commenting on GNSO position and drafting its own statement giving our approval for the budget as it was debated and agreed on in the CCWG accountability (GNSO points 1 to 4 are all included so no need to repeat them) Sorry but where it is incorporated in an ALAC statement? I may have missed something. Thanks for consideration. SeB ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Le 5 oct. 2016 à 19:45, Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> a écrit : I agree that 1-4 is to just support. We can clearly state that we can not see budget alocated to issue 5 – which I believe there is no hurry for this. *Vanda Scartezini* *Polo Consultores Associados* *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004* *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil* *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <%2B55%2011%203266.6253>* *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <%2B%2055%2011%2098181.1464> * *Sorry for any typos. * *From: *<alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> *Date: *Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:42 PM *To: *'ALAC List' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *[ALAC] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion There is an ongoing ALAC consensus call regarding approval of the FY17 CCWG Accountability WS2 budget and process which ends tomorrow. Based on the comments received to date, it will be approved. Below is the GNSO Motion approving the budget and process. I thank Sébastien for calling my attention to it. My assumption is that: - Resolved 1-4 were implied in the proposal, but there is no harm in reiterating them; - I think that we cannot stop the issue of jurisdiction/organization (Resolved 5) from being discussed, but I would not want to see an explicit funding (as in legal costs) going into this. Should we take any action? For example: a) Support 1-5 as noted above; b) explicitly not support one or more of the points; c) be silent; d) some other variant? Alan *From:* Marika Konings *Sent:* Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:33 PM *To:* Glen de Saint GÃ©ry <Glen(a)icann.org> *Subject:* Adopted motion *Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request* Made By: James Bladel Seconded by: Julf Helsingius, Keith Drazek WHEREAS, 1. Per its Charter, the Project Cost Support Team (PCST) has supported the CCWG-Accountability in developing a draft budget and cost-control processes for the CCWG-Accountability activities for FY17, and has also developed a historical analysis of all the transition costs to date (see https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf ). 2. The CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget was presented at its plenary meeting of June 21st and approved for transmission to the Chartering Organizations for validation as per the process agreed with the PCST. This request for validation was received on 23 June. 3. Following review and discussion during ICANN56, the GNSO Council requested a webinar on this topic which was held on 23 August (see transcript at https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg- accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.pdf , recording at http://audio.icann.org/ gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3 and AC recording at https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/) 4. The GNSO Council notes that many members of the GNSO community have expressed the view that the projected budget does not likely support revisiting the topic of the jurisdiction of ICANNâ€™s organization in that such exploration would likely require substantial independent legal advice on alternative jurisdictions and their potential impact on the text and structure of ICANNâ€™s Bylaws. 5. The GNSO Council has discussed and reviewed all the relevant materials. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the proposed CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget, as well as the cost-control processes presented in conjunction with the CCWG budget, expects the working groups to be restrained and judicious in their use of outside legal assistance, and believes that the Legal Committee should exercise reasonable and effective controls in evaluating requests for outside legal assistance and should approve them only when deemed essential to assist a working group to fully and objectively understand and develop a particular course of action for which the group has reached a substantial degree of consensus and requires legal advice on its risks and feasibility. 2. The GNSO Council expects to receive regular updates on actual expenditures as tracked against this adopted budget, and reserves the right to provide further input on the budget allocation in relation to the CCWG-Accountability related activities. 3. The GNSO Council expects ICANN staff, including its office of General Counsel, to provide the assistance requested by the CCWG and its working groups in an expeditious, comprehensive, and unbiased manner. 4. The GNSO Council expects the CCWG-Accountability and staff to work within the constraints of this approved budget, and that excess costs or requests for additional funding beyond said budget should be recommended by the Legal Committee only when deemed essential to completion of the CCWGâ€™s work and objectives. . 5. It is the position of the GNSO Council that revisiting the jurisdiction or organization of the ICANN legal entity, as established by CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, would not likely be supported by this projected budget and, further, that such inquiry should not be undertaken at this time because the new accountability measures are all premised and dependent on California jurisdiction for their effective operation, and any near-term changes in organizational jurisdiction could be extremely destabilizing for ICANN and its community. 6. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this resolution to the CCWG-Accountability Chairs, and to the office of the ICANN CFO. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann. org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

4 4

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 7, 2016

Oct. 7, 2016

There is an ongoing ALAC consensus call regarding approval of the FY17 CCWG Accountability WS2 budget and process which ends tomorrow. Based on the comments received to date, it will be approved. Below is the GNSO Motion approving the budget and process. I thank Sébastien for calling my attention to it. My assumption is that: - Resolved 1-4 were implied in the proposal, but there is no harm in reiterating them; - I think that we cannot stop the issue of jurisdiction/organization (Resolved 5) from being discussed, but I would not want to see an explicit funding (as in legal costs) going into this. Should we take any action? For example: a) Support 1-5 as noted above; b) explicitly not support one or more of the points; c) be silent; d) some other variant? Alan >From: Marika Konings >Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:33 PM >To: Glen de Saint GÃ©ry <<mailto:Glen@icann.org>Glen(a)icann.org> >Subject: Adopted motion > >Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request > >Made By: James Bladel >Seconded by: Julf Helsingius, Keith Drazek > >WHEREAS, > >1. Per its Charter, the Project Cost >Support Team (PCST) has supported the >CCWG-Accountability in developing a draft budget >and cost-control processes for the >CCWG-Accountability activities for FY17, and has >also developed a historical analysis of all the >transition costs to date (see ><https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf>https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf) > >2. The CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget was >presented at its plenary meeting of June 21st >and approved for transmission to the Chartering >Organizations for validation as per the process >agreed with the PCST. This request for validation was received on 23 June. > >3. Following review and discussion during >ICANN56, the GNSO Council requested a webinar on >this topic which was held on 23 August (see >transcript at ><https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg-accountability-webinar-2…>https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg-accountability-webinar-2…, >recording at ><http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3>http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3 >and AC recording at ><https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/>https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/) > > >4. The GNSO Council notes that many members >of the GNSO community have expressed the view >that the projected budget does not likely >support revisiting the topic of the jurisdiction >of ICANNâs organization in that such >exploration would likely require substantial >independent legal advice on alternative >jurisdictions and their potential impact on the >text and structure of ICANNâs Bylaws. > >5. The GNSO Council has discussed and >reviewed all the relevant materials. > >RESOLVED, > >1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the >proposed CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget, as >well as the cost-control processes presented in >conjunction with the CCWG budget, expects the >working groups to be restrained and judicious in >their use of outside legal assistance, and >believes that the Legal Committee should >exercise reasonable and effective controls in >evaluating requests for outside legal assistance >and should approve them only when deemed >essential to assist a working group to fully and >objectively understand and develop a particular >course of action for which the group has reached >a substantial degree of consensus and requires >legal advice on its risks and feasibility. > >2. The GNSO Council expects to receive >regular updates on actual expenditures as >tracked against this adopted budget, and >reserves the right to provide further input on >the budget allocation in relation to the >CCWG-Accountability related activities. > >3. The GNSO Council expects ICANN staff, >including its office of General Counsel, to >provide the assistance requested by the CCWG and >its working groups in an expeditious, comprehensive, and unbiased manner. > >4. The GNSO Council expects the >CCWG-Accountability and staff to work within the >constraints of this approved budget, and that >excess costs or requests for additional funding >beyond said budget should be recommended by the >Legal Committee only when deemed essential to >completion of the CCWGâs work and objectives. . > >5. It is the position of the GNSO Council >that revisiting the jurisdiction or organization >of the ICANN legal entity, as established by >CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, would not >likely be supported by this projected budget >and, further, that such inquiry should not be >undertaken at this time because the new >accountability measures are all premised and >dependent on California jurisdiction for their >effective operation, and any near-term changes >in organizational jurisdiction could be >extremely destabilizing for ICANN and its community. > >6. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO >Secretariat to communicate this resolution to >the CCWG-Accountability Chairs, and to the office of the ICANN CFO.

6 8

Re: [ALAC] [EURO-Discuss] Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Oct. 3, 2016

Oct. 3, 2016

Hi, Siva. No one speaks for NTIA except NTIA, so I cannot say whether there will be a more formal transition announcement. I believe ICANN will continue to make announcements regarding progress on implementation transition requirements. And ICANN57 will likely have activities that commemorate the Transition. Best regards, Rinalia On Saturday, 1 October 2016, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Rinalia, > > > Larry Strickling blog post as well as the ICANN blog post (Cheers to > Community) talks about the expiry of the contract, would there be a more > formal "Transition" announcement from NTIA or ICANN? > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com');>> wrote: > >> Dear Members of the At-Large Community, >> >> *The IANA Stewardship Transition is Complete* >> >> Today, on 1 October, the IANA functions contract between ICANN and NTIA >> expired. The expiration of the contract between ICANN and the United >> States National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), >> to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, will >> have no impact on end users of the Internet; they will not see any changes >> or difference in their use of the Internet. >> >> This historic moment marks the transition of the coordination and >> management of the Internet’s unique identifiers to the private-sector, a >> process that has been committed to and underway since 1998. >> >> The ICANN Community, Board and staff as well as the larger Internet >> community took on this challenge, over two and a half years, and succeeded. >> Developing the transition proposals was unprecedented, and reflected the >> multistakeholder community at work. Because of the hard work by >> everyone, the ICANN organization is now a more accountable and transparent >> body. There will be some small changes to how ICANN operates, but >> its underlying goal is the same – to support the Community and ensure the >> continued stable and secure operation of the DNS. >> >> It has been a privilege to be a part of this process where >> the multistakeholder model of Internet Governance demonstrated its power. >> I wanted to take a moment to thank and congratulate all of you for >> your hard work over the past two and a half years to get us to where we are >> today. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rinalia Abdul Rahim >> >> ICANN Board Director >> >> >> >> Links to announcements that have gone out about the IANA Stewardship >> transition: >> >> >> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assista >> nt-secretary-strickling-iana-functions-contract >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/final-implementation-update >> >> >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-09-30-en >> >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cheers-to-the-multistakeholder-community >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> APAC-Discuss mailing list >> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org');> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss >> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >> > > > > -- > Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> >

1 0

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: ALAC Liaisons
by ICANN At-Large Staff Oct. 3, 2016

Oct. 3, 2016

Dear All, The ALAC Appointee Selection Committee<https://community.icann.org/x/VwebAw> recommended for a full call for nominations for ALAC Liaisons for the 2016-2017 term. Thus, this is a call for nominations for the following ALAC Liaisons. The current Liaison is shown in brackets. - GNSO (Olivier Crepin-Leblond) - ccNSO (Maureen Hilyard) - SSAC (Julie Hammer) - GAC (Yrjö Länsipuro) -.MOBI (Murray McKercher) The one year terms will start at the close of ICANN 57 and end at the close of ICANN 60. The schedule for this call for Liaisons is: Call issued Friday, 23 September Call closes: Monday, 3 October at 23:59 UTC Acceptances due: Friday, 7 October at 23:59 UTC ALAC Appointee Selection Committee Teleconference: week of 10 October ALAC Vote (if multiple candidates from Selection Committee): As soon as practical after Selection Committee announces recommendations Please review the General Liaison requirements and responsibilities located in the revised RoP<http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2016-09> Section 7. Of particular importance, please note the following: - (As per RoP 7.3) Liaisons to AC/SOs need not be ALAC Members, but they will normally be current or past ALAC Members, or otherwise familiar with the ALAC and At-Large and the TG to whom they will liaise. - (As per RoP 7.8) When representing the ALAC, Appointees have an obligation to solicit ALAC and At-Large views on the matter where practical and possible. Appointees should be selected knowing that in many instances such consultation may not be possible or practical and thus the ALAC needs to select people who understand the philosophies or guiding values and principles of the ALAC and At-Large. - Liaisons should be selected based on their familiarity with the group to which they are appointed. Having worked extensively with them before in some capacity (such as on multiple WGs) is a strong asset. - A level of trust between a Liaison and the group to which they are appointed is mandatory for success and must already exist or it should be demonstrable how or why it may exist in the future. - Liaisons to AC/SOs require a MAJOR time commitment over and above other At-Large responsibilities. - For the SSAC Liaison position, the ALAC only makes a recommendation. The Liaison is a full SSAC Member and must satisfy SSAC criteria and follow SSAC processes for admission to the AC. - For the GAC Liaison position, the potential candidate must be approved by GAC Leadership. - For .MOBI, the prime issue not as much mutual respect and trust, but ensuring that the Liaison understands the business of .MOBI and is well versed in mobile technologies. Liaison reports may be seen here<https://community.icann.org/x/-pQi>. Liaisons are asked to provide monthly reports which summarize activities in the organization to which they are the Liaison. Process for Nomination and Selection: Nominations should be sent to the ALAC list<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> the cc’ing Alan Greenberg<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> and At-Large staff<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> by Friday, 03 October at 23:59 UTC. For nominations made by people without access to the ALAC list, Staff will post to the ALAC list. All Nominees, in their acceptance or self-nomination, must provide an Expression of Interest including sufficient information about their background and experience to allow the ALAC Appointment Selection Committee to review the nominations and decide on whether to forward their candidacy to the ALAC. The Selection Committee may choose to forward one or more candidates to the ALAC for each position. The Selection Committee or its Chair may choose to ask follow-up questions, but it is not obliged to, so submissions should be as complete as possible. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

8 8

Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Oct. 1, 2016

Oct. 1, 2016

Dear Members of the At-Large Community, *The IANA Stewardship Transition is Complete* Today, on 1 October, the IANA functions contract between ICANN and NTIA expired. The expiration of the contract between ICANN and the United States National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, will have no impact on end users of the Internet; they will not see any changes or difference in their use of the Internet. This historic moment marks the transition of the coordination and management of the Internet’s unique identifiers to the private-sector, a process that has been committed to and underway since 1998. The ICANN Community, Board and staff as well as the larger Internet community took on this challenge, over two and a half years, and succeeded. Developing the transition proposals was unprecedented, and reflected the multistakeholder community at work. Because of the hard work by everyone, the ICANN organization is now a more accountable and transparent body. There will be some small changes to how ICANN operates, but its underlying goal is the same – to support the Community and ensure the continued stable and secure operation of the DNS. It has been a privilege to be a part of this process where the multistakeholder model of Internet Governance demonstrated its power. I wanted to take a moment to thank and congratulate all of you for your hard work over the past two and a half years to get us to where we are today. Best regards, Rinalia Abdul Rahim ICANN Board Director Links to announcements that have gone out about the IANA Stewardship transition: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assista nt-secretary-strickling-iana-functions-contract https://www.icann.org/news/blog/final-implementation-update https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-09-30-en https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cheers-to-the-multistakeholder-community

3 2

Consensus Call: Decision regarding IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 1, 2016

Oct. 1, 2016

Given no opposition raised by any ALAC Members, the ALT has unanimously supported this process and specifics on behalf of the ALAC and I have so informed ICANN. Through this e-mail, I am requesting a Consensus Call of the ALAC ratifying the ALT decision. With this message, I am initiating a Consensus Call of the ALAC ratifying the ALT decision as per Paragraph 6.2 of our Rules of Procedure. The Consensus Call will end at 23:59 on Thursday, 06 October 2016. If there are any questions of comments, please direct them to either this list or to me directly. Although message indicating support are welcome, they are not necessary. Should this Consensus Call fail due to significant opposition (greater than 20% as specified by ALAC RoP 12.3.3.1), we will revert to a formal vote. Alan At 29/09/2016 02:03 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The following has just been brought to my attention. > >As described in the message forwarded below, the >ALAC, as a Chartering Organization of the >CWG-Stewardship, is being asked if we support >the proposal regarding the handling of the >IANA-related intellectual property and domain >names. They will be transferred to the IETF >Trust with the three IANA communities overseeing >IETF Trust. The oversight will be carried out >through a Community Coordinating Committee (CCG). > >In summary: >- ICANN will act as the signatory to the >agreements on behalf of the Names Community >- The CWG, as long as it exists, will provide >direction to ICANN in this respect. >- In the event that the CWG no longer exists, >the Chairs of the consenting AC/SOs will >collectively direct ICANN in this respect. >- Initial Names Community CCG representatives >shall be the CWG co-chairs plus Greg Shatan who >has overseen the entire IP process. > >There has been extensive discussion within the >CWG on this and I believe that the resultant >plan more than meets ICANN's needs. > >The US Congress has not blocked the transition, >but a number of US States are attempting to do >so through the courts. At this point we are >presuming that the Stewardship will go through >and accordingly, the IP-related contracts need to be signed by tomorrow. > >Under ALAC RoP 6.2: The ALT shall have no other >explicit responsibilities and is not empowered >to make substantive decisions on the part of the >ALAC unless urgency or confidentiality precludes >consulting the ALAC. In such a case, the >decision needs to be ratified with the ALAC as soon as practical. > >I will be asking the ALT to provide ALAC >agreement by tomorrow and if the ALT does so, I >will come back to the ALAC for ratification. > >IF ANYONE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE >ALAC SUPPORTING THIS ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY. > >Alan > >>From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> >>Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to >>the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship >> Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right >>Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:37:38 +0000 >> >>Dear Chairs, >> >>Please see below a note from the Jonathan >>Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. >>-- >>Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, >> >>As part of the transition implementation work, >>representatives from the names community, the >>numbers community, the protocol parameters >>community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have >>drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the >>transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF >>Trust and to govern the relationships amongst >>the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. >> >>These agreements are: >> >>- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement >>transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. >> >>- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for >>the names, numbers, and protocol parameters >>IANA services.): These agreements allows for >>the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. >> >>- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This >>agreement explains the rights and obligations >>of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. >> >>After a public comment period last month, the >>agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. >> >>One of the decisions that the CWG had to make >>as part of the work was to identify who would >>be the signatory of the Community Agreement on >>behalf of the Naming Community. The decision >>made by the group, with input from CWG external >>counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An >>instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. >> >>The Instruction Letter says: "This letter >>confirms the request of the Cross Community >>Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship >>Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions >>(CWG) for the benefit of those of its listed >>chartering organizations the Country Code >>Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the >>Security and Stability Advisory Committee >>(SSAC), the Generic Names Supporting >>Organization (GNSO), the At Large Advisory >>Committee (ALAC) and the Governmental >>Advisory Committee (GAC) that have affirmed >>or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree >>to be included herein (each a Consenting >>SO/AC and collectively, the Names Community) >>that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names >>Community under the Community Agreement." >> >>This makes reference to the COs affirming in >>writing that they agree to be included in the >>instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. >> >>As ICANN might formally reach out to us to >>obtain confirmation that one or more COs have >>agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby >>kindly ask that you provide such a written >>confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying >>to this email, preferably on or before >>September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of >>the agreement may proceed as planned. >> >>Thank you for your cooperation, >> >>Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.

3 3